Zac Medico wrote:
Isn't that just a consequence of how autotools works? Do you have a better alternative?
Maaaybe letting the package manager know how to run autotools if necessary? There's already built-in autotools knowledge in that econf is in practice autotools-specific. On the other hand, the eclass logic isn't trivial, so unless a simplified subset would be adequate for this usage it's probably best left as it is.
The point I was trying to get at was that it seems a bit heavyweight to rely on a whole eclass for a minor use-case, as well as a bit error-prone to expect people to remember it every time, but maybe that's the least bad option after all....
