Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 22:20:05 GMT From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/81558: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro is not available to automake Message-ID: <200505292220.j4TMK5QY006256@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/81558; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Markus Hoenicka <markus.hoenicka@mhoenicka.de> Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: misc/81558: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro is not available to automake Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 01:16:42 +0300 On 2005-05-29 21:51, Markus Hoenicka <markus.hoenicka@mhoenicka.de> wrote: >Giorgos Keramidas writes: >>> The symptoms are: >>> - automake --add-missing --force-missing fails to install >>> mkinstalldirs in the sources if there is no conf subdir. >>> Manually copying the file fixes the build problem. If there is a >>> conf subdirectory, a symlink is created properly >> >> I think automake looks for an option in configure.ac and puts the files >> in the directory specified there. The ports version of gnu-automake is >> relatively old though and may be broken. > > I couldn't find a macro that would specifically control which files > are installed in the source tree. I'll investigate further before I > claim this is a bug. The AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR() macro sets the directory where autoconf and automake will look for "auxiliary build tools". This is, in my experience, where autotools will install all helper files too, when the --copy option is used. >>> - the /usr/local/gnu-autotools/share/aclocal directory is next to >>> empty. If a package like the Iconv stuff installs m4 macros, they >>> end up in /usr/local/share/aclocal and are therefore not available >>> to the gnu version of aclocal. I know that aclocal has an --acdir >>> option but this is not useful for writing portable autogen.sh or >>> bootstrap.sh scripts. >> >> Hmmm, this is a problem indeed. One that cannot be fixed by using a >> prefix different from /usr/local :-( > > Would that qualify as a bug? From my point of view this problem > renders the gnu-autotools packages pretty useless. I don't know about > the backgrounds of the split between bsd autotools and gnu autotools, > but I'd prefer to have one set of autotools on the system. It would probably qualify as a bug. Unless the ports that need to find autotools can be taught to use autoconf magic to detect at install time where their autoconf related macros should be installed. > Should I file a bug report about this problem? I'm not sure. The maintainer of the gnu-auto* ports should be contacted first, since my experience with autotools is strictly limited to the absolutely necessary parts that are needed for my dayjob. I mostly avoid autotools when I can ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200505292220.j4TMK5QY006256>