[Buildroot] [Bug 1711] New: Should libtool package install ltmain.sh into staging ?

[Buildroot] [Bug 1711] New: Should libtool package install ltmain.sh into staging ?

[bugzilla at busybox.net]

https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1711

           Summary: Should libtool package install ltmain.sh into staging
                    ?
           Product: buildroot
           Version: 2010.02
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P5
         Component: Other
        AssignedTo: unassigned at buildroot.uclibc.org
        ReportedBy: nick at leverton.org
                CC: buildroot at uclibc.org
   Estimated Hours: 0.0


Created attachment 1669
  --> https://bugs.busybox.net/attachment.cgi?id=1669
Patch to copy ltmain.sh to the staging area.

I'm no libtool expert and I'm struggling to adapt a couple of packages which
use it to Buildroot.  Instead trying to find the incompatibilities and then to
generate patches which mung the package's existing ltmain.sh, and which may
well break when the package is updated, I'd like to be able to copy in the
latest ltmain.sh, as is already done by gnuconfig for config.{guess,sub}.

At present I am doing this when required with a PACKAGE_POST_PATCH_HOOKS
target.  So there is no need to add extra Buildroot config items, potentially 
breaking other packages, as long as ltmain.sh is available in a known place.

If there's some reason why this is silly or otherwise not the best way to work,
I'd welcome any advice.  Otherwise please would you consider the attached patch
to add ltmain.sh to the libtool staging files ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Buildroot] [Bug 1711] Should libtool package install ltmain.sh into staging ?

[bugzilla at busybox.net]

https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1711

--- Comment #1 from Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>  ---
So you're suggesting to replace package/buildroot-libtool.patch by a copy of a
"sane" ltmain.sh ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Buildroot] [Bug 1711] Should libtool package install ltmain.sh into staging ?

[bugzilla at busybox.net]

https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1711

Nick Leverton <nick@leverton.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |nick at leverton.org

--- Comment #2 from Nick Leverton <nick@leverton.org>  ---
Heavens no, I'm not sure why it looks like I said that.  Sorry.  So many
packages in buildroot rely on that file.  Did my patch have a bad side effect
on it ?

I'm wondering if there is any reason why the latest ltmain.sh shouldn't be
available in the toolchain staging as-is, rather than going to the trouble of
patching $RANDOM_LTMAIN from the upstream ?  On my Debian packaging I find it's
often (not always, admittedly) more trouble than it's worth to patch auto*/lt*
rather than just use the distro's current version (BR's current build version
chosen by the configurer, in this case).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Buildroot] [Bug 1711] Should libtool package install ltmain.sh into staging ?

[bugzilla at busybox.net]

https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1711

Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #3 from Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>  ---
I'm by far no libtool expert either, but the solution we have currently in
Buildroot, which consists in patching ltmain.sh seems to work quite well for
all the packages we have. That solution has been around for quite some time and
has been very stable. The number of libtool versions to handle is relatively
limited (three at the moment) and the different patches are very similar, so
the maintainance burden is really not a problem.

Therefore, I'd prefer to keep the libtool patching mechanism as it is today,
unless there are compelling reasons to change it (like a package not working in
the current mechanism).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.busybox.net/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.