Build and install the GNU Autoconf Macro Archive. The archive contains just text files; there is no build process. Hence, it should work nicely on all platforms Gentoo supports. Where I could test it, on x86, it did. I'm not sure how to handle the different version number markup correctly, but I think the way I have is okay. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
Created attachment 49480 [details] autoconf-archive-20050125.ebuild
sys-devel/ac-archive-0.5.57 is already in portage
Sorry, I probably should have said something. That is in fact a different macro archive, and it works with aclocal(1) rather requiring its own custom tools (acinclude) to include macros in configure scripts. The documentation is also quite a bit better. I think it would be worthwile to have both archives in Portage, so that the user can choose. Anyway, that's the GNU Autoconf Macro Archive, not ac-archive.sf.net.
Created attachment 51227 [details] sys-devel/autoconf-archive-20050214.ebuild New release.
Created attachment 56586 [details] sys-devel/autoconf-archive-20050418 ebuild New release.
ok, i cleaned up the ebuild and added to portage for future reference: - shell code in global scope is bad (i.e. executing things like sed) - use make install DESTDIR=$D instead of einstall thanks for the ebuild !
I was wondering: What's the problem with einstall? Why does the alias exist if its use is discouraged? I thought that einstall would be preferred over calling make manually, but apparently it isn't? Anyhow, thanks for getting the ebuild into portage. I looked at the changes you've made -- next time I'll know better. ;-) There is a new version of the autoconf macro archive available, by the way. All you have to do to update is: # cd /usr/portage/sys-devel/autoconf-archive/ # cp autoconf-archive-2005.04.18.ebuild autoconf-archive-2005.05.02.ebuild
when einstall was designed years ago, its usage was a lot more common because packages based on older autotools (and thus did not support DESTDIR) was more common as well
