Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:32:32 +1030 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Patching libtool Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.9902032125580.25468-100000@bragg>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I posted something a few days ago regarding the patches needed by libtool for 4.0, but didnt receive anything in response. Basically, I'm wondering if there is some reason why patching each and every port which includes libtool 1.2 in the distribution is better than just adding a BUILD_DEPENDS on devel/libtool, and pointing configure to /usr/local/share/libtool instead of the included version? It still requires a patch, but it seems to me that this is a much more maintainable solution in the face of future changes which may be required to libtool: for example, when libtool 1.3 comes out which includes the FreeBSD patches (they have been submitted back to the maintainers, right? :), no changes are needed to the dozens of ports which include a local copy of libtool 1.2 (provided it's fully backwards-compatible, as it should be). If on the other hand we keep adding the same patch to each and every port which uses libtool, they'll all have to go away when the authors release a new version based on libtool 1.3, for which the patches are no longer relevant. Kris ----- (ASP) Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) announced today that the release of its productivity suite, Office 2000, will be delayed until the first quarter of 1901. 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?Pine.OSF.4.05.9902032125580.25468-100000>