On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 05:35:53PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 06/11/2017 05:24 PM, David Seifert wrote: > >> 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. > >> > > Here's a deal: you can start filing + fixing them. > > > > The [tracker] is already started, it was determined to add QA warning > with info on filing upstream bugs in [bug 426262] and the proper > solution is again iterated in [bug 546614], so its not like this is a > new approach that is being suggested, but sure, we should all file bugs > when we encounter them. > > References: > [tracker] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=530632 > > [bug 426262] > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426262 > > [bug 546614] > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=546614
It seems that the proper fix to this, even for a package that won't do the fix upstream is to use WANT_AUTOCONF in the ebuild to force the version of autoconf you need. Thanks, William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
