Ühel kenal päeval, P, 11.06.2017 kell 11:12, kirjutas William Hubbs: > 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.
No. It appears you don't know how WANT_AUTOCONF works.
