Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 17:12, kirjutas Kristian Fiskerstrand: > On 06/11/2017 05:07 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 10:00, kirjutas William > > Hubbs: > > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 01:04:06PM +0100, Sergei Trofimovich > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:28:19 +0200 > > > > Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426262 > > > > > + mv configure.{in,ac} || die > > > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Sergei > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > I think this should be handled by the packages, not at the eclass > > > level. > > > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426262#c3 > > > > > > The packages should either mv the configure.in to configure.ac > > > internally, or better yet, the maintainers should ask upstream > > > for > > > their > > > packages to fix it. > > > > +1, otherwise we will never be able to add/unmask a newer autoconf > > that > > doesn't look at configure.in anymore, once such a version > > eventually > > happens. > > > > We can always patch the eclass at that point if that is still a big > concern, but I fundamentally agree with William on this, starting > point > should be fixing it upstream, so can start with a tracking bug on > affected packages.
That's a complete useless waste of time, to track some ancient packages that don't get any upstream update anyway. The active ones have updated it long ago. And it'd be a joke to propose last riting for the reason of a file being named configure.in instead of configure.ac.
