From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Mar 4 7:26: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from shale.csir.co.za (shale.csir.co.za [146.64.46.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849AE14CA5; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:25:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from reg@shale.csir.co.za) Received: (from reg@localhost) by shale.csir.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA35716; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 17:25:34 +0200 (SAT) (envelope-from reg) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 17:25:34 +0200 From: Jeremy Lea To: Satoshi Asami Cc: garyj@muc.de, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: all those .la files Message-ID: <19990304172534.C85737@shale.csir.co.za> References: <199903021952.UAA00615@peedub.muc.de> <199903030249.SAA36437@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: <199903030249.SAA36437@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from Satoshi Asami on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 06:49:24PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 06:49:24PM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote: > Sorry if I'm smoking something wierd here, but I thought the original > proposal is to have ports come with their own libtool to use > ports/devel/libtool. > > That way we only need to fix one broken port instead of dozens, no? :) Yes, that was Kris's plan, which I'm beginning to like more and more... I haven't looked at it yet, but if most ports are using libtool.m4 -> aclocal.m4 -> configure, then we might be able to get away with 'patching' via a sed script in bsd.port.mk (as a post-patch target), rather than patching 20 million configures. Regards, -Jeremy -- | What will people think when they hear that I'm a Jesus freak? --+-- What will people do when they find that it's true? | I don't really care if they label me a Jesus Freak, | There ain't no disguising the truth. - d c Talk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message