Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 20:40:04 GMT From: "Markus Hoenicka" <markus.hoenicka@mhoenicka.de> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/81558: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro is not available to automake Message-ID: <200505292040.j4TKe4HO092745@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/81558; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Markus Hoenicka" <markus.hoenicka@mhoenicka.de> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: misc/81558: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro is not available to automake Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 21:51:55 +0200 Hi, Giorgos Keramidas writes: > > The symptoms are: > > - automake --add-missing --force-missing fails to install > > mkinstalldirs in the sources if there is no conf subdir. > > Manually copying the file fixes the build problem. If there is a > > conf subdirectory, a symlink is created properly > > I think automake looks for an option in configure.ac and puts the files > in the directory specified there. The ports version of gnu-automake is > relatively old though and may be broken. > I couldn't find a macro that would specifically control which files are installed in the source tree. I'll investigate further before I claim this is a bug. > Does the same thing happen with newer versions of automake too? I've > been using automake-1.9.x for a while now, so it may be worth testing to > see if newer versions fix this problem and asking the port maintainers > to update the version installed by the port. > Well, all I can say that it didn't happen with older automake versions. > > - the /usr/local/gnu-autotools/share/aclocal directory is next to > > empty. If a package like the Iconv stuff installs m4 macros, they > > end up in /usr/local/share/aclocal and are therefore not available > > to the gnu version of aclocal. I know that aclocal has an --acdir > > option but this is not useful for writing portable autogen.sh or > > bootstrap.sh scripts. > > Hmmm, this is a problem indeed. One that cannot be fixed by using a > prefix different from /usr/local :-( > Would that qualify as a bug? From my point of view this problem renders the gnu-autotools packages pretty useless. I don't know about the backgrounds of the split between bsd autotools and gnu autotools, but I'd prefer to have one set of autotools on the system. Otherwise the gnu autotools should be integrated into the installation procedures of autotools-related packages. Should I file a bug report about this problem? regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka markus.hoenicka@cats.de (Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka") http://www.mhoenicka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200505292040.j4TKe4HO092745>