On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 16:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:11:15 +0300 > Mart Raudsepp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * ECONF-OPTIONS > > > > query > > --disable-dependency-tracking has other implications than it being > > allowed to be passed to ./configure or not - such as dependency > > tracking being, well, disabled and the affects of that in face of any > > outside influences to headers used by it from the system, when > > compared to the case when dependency tracking is enabled. Such as > > when a separate (possibly parallel) install step kicks in. > > If a parallel install is overwriting things on / whilst a package is > compiling, things are already horribly broken regardless of this > switch. PMS explicitly forbids that from happening.
That's that. And then there's the real world. > > Olivier Crête also has an outstanding comment about a maintainer > > possibly not wanting that disabled in case of patches applied. Could > > use some elaboration on that thought, or comments in replies. > > It's always possible to override it if necessary. No. It is possible to not use econf and write all of the options it's supposed to be passing manually. Probably missing something or otherwise being horribly long. > > --enable-fast-install is completely new to me for consideration under > > EAPI-3. Maybe I just missed it when reading PMS draft before, and it > > wasn't listed in the other summaries. > > No, it's been there all along. Ok. That doesn't change it's complete pointlessness to be there. Anyway, "whatever" on --disable-dependency-tracking Definitely _no_ on --enable-fast-install. It is already the default and when it isn't (I know of no such cases), upstream maintainer has _explicitly_ made it so. It is not our business to be passing the libtool specific default argument. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: [email protected] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
