From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 01:43:33 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D58516A41C for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:43:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.lovett.com (foo.lovett.com [67.134.38.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBA043D49 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:43:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org) Received: from hellfire.lovett.com ([67.134.38.149]:57190) by mail.lovett.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.51 (FreeBSD)) id 1Dj5tN-000JWU-2j; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:43:33 -0700 Message-ID: <42B22ABE.8090105@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:43:26 -0700 From: Ade Lovett User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Weinberger References: <42B21E9D.80709@FreeBSD.org> <42B22473.3000001@magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <42B22473.3000001@magnesium.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ade@lovett.com Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposed rework of autotools call structure from port Makefiles X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:43:33 -0000 Adam Weinberger wrote: > Is specifying the exact versions always necessary? Is it possible to > examine a configure.in or something to determine the version of > libtool/auto* needed, and then run that? That would also help with > things like the recent libtool13->libtool15 sweep, if one could just > define USE_AUTOTOOLS=autoconf and the build system could intuit the rest. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that such auto-detection of the "required" version is insanely prone to error. There are so many different styles of generated scripts (particularly for autoconf and automake), that such parsing would be extremely tricky. That's not to say that it's impossible, but I think it's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here -- it could certainly be considered at a later date. On reflection, I'm wondering whether it would make sense to have two variables, USE_AUTOTOOLS and WANT_AUTOTOOLS, each with just a simple list of things that are needed. This is more in spirit with other USE/WANT variables, and doesn't add too much complexity. Thoughts? -aDe