Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:52:54 -0800 From: Scott Blachowicz <scott@sabami.seaslug.org> To: Mike Hogsett <hogsett@csl.sri.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: port : nmh Message-ID: <20011115165254.A71824@sabami.seaslug.org> In-Reply-To: <200111151853.fAFIrks19617@glob.csl.sri.com>; from hogsett@csl.sri.com on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:53:46AM -0800 References: <200111151853.fAFIrks19617@glob.csl.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:53:46AM -0800, Mike Hogsett wrote:
>
> hogx# cd /usr/ports/mail/nmh
> hogx# make
> ===> Building for nmh-1.0.4_1
> cd . && autoheader
> autoheader: not found
> *** Error code 127
Well...The port Makefile has
USE_AUTOCONF= yes
and autoheader is part of autoconf, so it seems like it should be OK. And
my copy of /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk has these lines in there:
.if defined(USE_AUTOCONF)
GNU_CONFIGURE= yes
BUILD_DEPENDS+= autoconf213:${PORTSDIR}/devel/autoconf213
.endif
which should get it built/installed before trying to build nmh.
Hmmm...in scanning for "autoheader" among 'pkg_info -L' output, I see
that the autoconf-2.13_1 pkg has "autoheader" in it and the package
autoconf213-2.13.000227 has "autoheader213" in it. So, it looks like the
command names change somewhere in here? How is a standard autoconf'd
package supposed to know to run "autoheader213" instead of "autoheader"?
Does the port have to patch it up to use the new command name?
--
Scott Blachowicz
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011115165254.A71824>