Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:54:04 -0200 From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" <lioux@uol.com.br> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: 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: <20011025135404.A2336@exxodus.fedaykin.here> In-Reply-To: <20011025081956.G28706@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 08:19:34AM -0700 References: <XFMail.011024143149.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <3BD7C115.63F75C69@FreeBSD.org> <20011025081956.G28706@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 08:19:34AM -0700, David E. O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 10:36:53AM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > Errm, IMO, it would make more sense to do this in the way David
> > > proposed letting the auto* ports take on the new version and making
> > > the auto*XX ports use the old one, then just fix any breakages that
> > > come up. Doesn't bento do automated builds of the packages? Just
> > > commit the changes, let the builds go through, and fix the errors
> > > that pop up. We don't have a release real soon, so it should be
> > > livable.
> >
> > Are you going to reply to those zillion "hey port XX broke
> > because of auto*" PR, which will surely pop up if we do as
> > you suggest?
>
> 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?
I don't know about others, but my reasons for adding USE_AUTO{CONF,MAKE},
or (worse) directly adding BUILD_DEPENDS for those usually are:
1) for some reason, the distfile (not the port) USES auto{conf,make}
during configure/build process. Some developers want to do things
dynamically
2) patching *.in *.am files sometimes is CLEANER, easier to
understand and (of course) smaller than patching .in files.
Furthermore, sometimes it is not possible to patch Makefile.in files,
since they might get re-generated during build (check (1))
3) sometimes (edgy cases) some configure just does not work,
autoconf is the only thing that helps. Sometimes that happens with
automake as well
Those are the ones that just spring to mind. I'm sure that
others would find even more reasons to use auto{conf,make}. That does
not mean I don't want the update, I want the update. And, I volunteer
to help proofing problems out though I am not an auto* tools expert.
Since we are bringing this up. What's libtool status?
My 2 cents,
--
Mario S F Ferreira - UnB - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature."
lioux at ( freebsd dot org | linf dot unb dot br )
flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org
feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature
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?20011025135404.A2336>