Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:20:53 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/automake Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <20011025122053.B26868@leviathan.inethouston.net> In-Reply-To: <20011025104418.Z25747@squall.waterspout.com> References: <XFMail.011024143149.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <3BD7C115.63F75C69@FreeBSD.org> <20011025081956.G28706@dragon.nuxi.com> <20011025104418.Z25747@squall.waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 08:19:56AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > Maybe. How can anyone say anything until someone makes a list of what > > breaks. I want to know why so many ports are using autoconf and automake > > rather than used the included Makefile.in and configure. Are ports that > > use the GNU build system using autoconf+automake just because they are > > there? > > Most of the time it's because using them makes for smaller > patches in the ports tree. That's my experience anyway. > I'm sure there atleast has to be a few autoconf+automake ports that just have it enabled because its there and not because its really needed. Mr. Obrien isn't questioning the use of autoconf when you are patching configure.in, but ports that don't need to use autoconf because they aren't patching it. -- David W. Chapman Jr. dwcjr@inethouston.net Raintree Network Services, Inc. <www.inethouston.net> dwcjr@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer <www.FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011025122053.B26868>