Bugzilla Bug 174794

openoffice-2.2.0 will fail during src_compile complaining about too old
autoconf, which is masked for some reason (at least on hardened).

> aclocal.m4:14: error: this file was generated for autoconf 2.61.
> You have another version of autoconf.  If you want to use that,
> you should regenerate the build system entirely.

After adding inherit autotools and eautoreconf (in src_unpack), openoffice is
building atm.

Hmm, why is this masked on hardened? On all other platforms it seems to be
marked stable already.

Anyway: Maybe that's just because I rolled the tarball for ooo-build myself, so
if anyone knows how to do this in a better way (never done it before,
actually), please add your input

(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmm, why is this masked on hardened? On all other platforms it seems to be
> marked stable already.

It's masked because of bug 161566.

Christian pointed out the correct way. One should use eautoreconf from
autotools eclass over direct auto* calls in ebuilds.

So replacing autoconf with eautoreconf in src_compile would be correct.

(In reply to comment #3)
> So replacing autoconf with eautoreconf in src_compile would be correct.

I think you mean src_unpack()

no, look at ebuild. ;)
that's the way there.

Then thats a QA problem. eauto* should be called at the tail end of a
src_unpack()

(In reply to comment #3)
> Christian pointed out the correct way. One should use eautoreconf from
> autotools eclass over direct auto* calls in ebuilds.
> 
> So replacing autoconf with eautoreconf in src_compile would be correct.
> 

I know, but that's actually not what I was asking about. As I've been rolling
the tarball myself, the cleaner solution might be to use an older autoconf when
doing that instead of having to use an otherwise not necessary call of
eautoreconf.

Still I've fixed this now as proposed (using eautoreconf and moving it up to
src_unpack() where it really belongs), closing

If you take sources from svn or cvs you should run ./autogen.sh, shouldn't you?
What it does is nothing more than what eautoreconf does. And the latter one
does (I guess) some extra Gentooism tweaks.

O well, may be I misunderstand your question again? :) ... then just ignore it.