On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 07:14:52PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > 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. From the eclass:
# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: WANT_AUTOCONF # @DESCRIPTION: # The major version of autoconf your package needs That leads me to believe that you can set WANT_AUTOCONF="someversion" in your ebuild and your package will use that version of autoconf. If that's wrong, it needs to be fixed and that's a different bug entirely, but it doesn't change my position on adding this particular change to autotools.eclass. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
