Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:08:23 +0200 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@serebryakov.spb.ru> Cc: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reasons for USE_AUTOCONF/USE_AUTOMAKE usage? Message-ID: <20021210130823.GA12089@shale.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <1356964125.20021210152423@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <1391185187.20021210134804@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20021210112916.GO50581@k7.mavetju> <1356964125.20021210152423@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:24:23PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> 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!
Normally the reason is that the patches are easier too do on
configure.in rather than configure. I personally prefer the procedure
of having a patch for configure.in, and maintainer running with
USE_AUTOCONF, then generating a patch for configure, and updating both
in the port. But that's a lot more work for the maintainer.
Anyway, if you use more than a few ports you are normally forced into
requiring perl, autoconf, automake, gmake, etc. So why make life more
difficult for the maintainer.
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free...
http://www.freebsd.org/
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?20021210130823.GA12089>