From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Feb 2 16:21:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dppl.com (sapas.dppl.biz [216.182.10.231]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8188037B417 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 16:21:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from volyn.coolrat.org (bgp431251bgs.union01.nj.comcast.net [68.36.218.89]) (AUTH: PLAIN yds, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,168bits,DES-CBC3-SHA) by dppl.com with esmtp; Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:21:12 -0500 Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:20:41 -0500 From: Yarema To: Alex Dupre Cc: Ports FreeBSD Subject: Re: pdflib 4.0.2 Message-ID: <1055040000.1012695641@volyn.coolrat.org> In-Reply-To: <3C5C6FAE.7080605@alexdupre.com> References: <3C5C283E.9020301@alexdupre.com> <936270000.1012673656@volyn.coolrat.org> <3C5C35A0.4070809@alexdupre.com> <977910000.1012680496@volyn.coolrat.org> <3C5C6FAE.7080605@alexdupre.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --On Sunday, February 03, 2002 00:01:02 +0100 Alex Dupre wrote: > Yarema wrote: >> OK, got it now. The perl lib issue is a non-issue in my opinion. >> FreeBSD ports don't use it to create dependencies. So long as it works >> its fine. > > Perfect...I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't sure. > >> I added a post-patch: target to substitute ../libtool with >> /usr/local/bin/libtool > > I found a better way to do it, look the pr: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=34563 I tried it that way and didn't particularly like it because you're still not using the FreeBSD installed libtool. The reason I rolled that post-patch target was to avoid using the libtool provided by pdflib itself. If LIBTOOLFILES does not point at an aclocal.m4 then USE_LIBTOOL patches configure itself to use /usr/local/bin/libtool. I was just helping it along by patching all the Makefile.in files to do what USE_LIBTOOL does to the configure script. Granted that your way works, but the reason USE_LIBTOOL was invented was to avoid relying on the libtool provided by the vendor which might not always do things the "FreeBSD way". Honestly I don't know if I was doing the right thing or you are. Above is just the reasoning I followed to for cutting LIBTOOLFILES out of your patch. Using LIBTOOLFILES definitely looks much cleaner and my way might actually be wrong, but my way seemed more in line with the reason USE_LIBTOOL was invented in the first place. I'm posting this to ports@FreeBSD.org -- perhaps some of the gurus there can enlighten us on which is the Right Thing (TM) to do. -- Yarema To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message