Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:23:28 -0600 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "Sheldon Hearn" <sheldonh@starjuice.net>, <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Will Andrews" <will@physics.purdue.edu>, "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: <004501c16085$472c7fa0$fe0c4042@inethouston.net> References: <5067.1004347226@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:43:55 PST, "David O'Brien" wrote: > > > > When you're contributing patches back to the author, that makes sense. > > > > But we don't have to carry the patches around in the port. > > Make the patch to configure.in, mail it off; commit the patch to > > configure -- save some dependancies for the poor ports builder. > > That's how I see it as well. Sorry if the brevity of my message left > you thinking I meant something else. > I don't have a problem doing this from now on, its just in the beginning I was forced and trained to patch configure.in and I think that's why a lot of ports committers do it. If we patch configure instead of configure.in though what would we need autoconf for any more? 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?004501c16085$472c7fa0$fe0c4042>