Date: 30 Sep 1999 00:17:56 -0700 From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, reg@shale.csir.co.za Subject: Re: Bad interaction between libtool version check and patches Message-ID: <vqczoy427h7.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Bill Fenner's message of "Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:40:34 -0700 (PDT)" References: <199909272040.NAA69605@mango.attlabs.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> * I was trying to install linux_base, which tried to install rpm, which * tried to install gdbm. gdbm complained that my libtool was out of * date; so I pushd /usr/ports/whatever/libtool; make install; popd. * Now I'm back in linux_base, and I say "make" again, but this time * the gdbm port fails because its patches were already applied and it's * trying to patch again. * * It'd be nice if failing the libtool version check didn't leave the * port in an inconsistent state; now I have to go down 2 levels of * dependencies (or scroll back past 50 lines of "Exit 1") and make clean. * I don't have any brilliant suggestions, other than splitting the * patch-libtool target into pre-patch-libtool which checks the version * and post-patch-libtool which does whatever else. Actually, I was wondering if we can't just move this whole thing before all the pre-* invocations. Jeremy, is there any reason this has to be done after the actual patching? The patches can be made to apply to the pre-libtool-patch'd files, right? Satoshi 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?vqczoy427h7.fsf>