Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:10:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: ports/3996: nmh needs dependecy on autoconfig to work. Message-ID: <199707010410.VAA06580@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/3996; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: scott@statsci.com Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/3996: nmh needs dependecy on autoconfig to work. Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:09:08 -0600 In message <m0wiu61-0007RHC@plum.statsci.com> Scott Blachowicz writes: : Is that dependency normal for packages that use the GNU autoconf? I think so. : It only : really needs 'autoheader' if you modify some file that is input to autoconf. : Unfortunately the 'patch' process does that. I assume you try to do a 'make' : of the port and the patches happened fast enough to give the patched input : files the same update time as the output files, thus triggering the running of : 'autoheader', right? I think so. All I typed was make, it fetched the file and then died when it tried to run autoheader. : Is there a reasonable solution? I don't know if depending on autoconf is : quite right (as that would mean that every autoconf'd package should depend on : autoconf and autoconf is really for package developers, not package build or : install). Or maybe I should just patch that rule out of the Makefile : instead? I'd patch the rule out of the Makefile, and make a patch such that you get the same results as if you had run the autoheader yourself. That is, a patch to the files that autoheader generates. Heck, if you did that in the right order, you wouldn't need to patch the Makefile at all, since things would be up to date, right? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707010410.VAA06580>