From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Dec 10 4:23:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B198F37B401 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ftp.translate.ru (ftp.translate.ru [195.131.4.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66B343EB2 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:23:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) Received: from lev (ip50-205.dialup.wplus.net [195.131.50.205]) (authenticated bits=0) by ftp.translate.ru (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBACNECE098465; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:23:15 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:24:23 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53d) Reply-To: Lev Serebryakov Organization: Home X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1356964125.20021210152423@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Edwin Groothuis Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re[2]: Reasons for USE_AUTOCONF/USE_AUTOMAKE usage? In-Reply-To: <20021210112916.GO50581@k7.mavetju> References: <1391185187.20021210134804@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20021210112916.GO50581@k7.mavetju> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Hello, Edwin! Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 2:29:16 PM, you wrote: >> Why so many ports declare, that they use autoconf/automake, and, >> via them, perl5? >>> >> Many programs compiles fine with bundled `configure'. and >> `Makefile.in' files and could be compiled without any perl5! Is here EG> A part of autoconf253 (actually, autom4te) is a perl-script, so a EG> lot of ports have USE_PERL5=yes in their Makefile if they use EG> autoconf. I know it. It is not answer on my question. My question is: why so many ports USE autoconf? `configure' script and other RESULTS of work of `autoconf' package is BUNDLED with sources and could be used WITHOUT `autoconf' (and `autom4te') to produce proper `Makefile' and `config.h'. So, IMHO, here is no need to use _autoconf _ (not `configure' script, but `autocnf' itself) in MANY ports. Of course, some of these ports really need autoconf, because doesn't contain `configure' or other generated parts of this framework in source tarball), but why SO MANY? For example, `deverl/libedit' could be build WITHOUT autoconf: supplied scripts & templates woks fine (and only version of shared library is changed)! Binary results is SAME! Lev Serebryakov /-----------------------------------------------\ | FIDONet: 2:5030/661.0 | | E-Mail: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru | | Page: http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/ | | ICQ UIN: 3670018 | | Phone: You know, if you have world nodelist | \===============================================/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message