From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Jun 30 21:10:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06604
          for ports-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06580;
          Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199707010410.VAA06580@hub.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-ports
Cc: 
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Subject: Re: ports/3996: nmh needs dependecy on autoconfig to work. 
Reply-To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR ports/3996; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To: scott@statsci.com
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/3996: nmh needs dependecy on autoconfig to work. 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:09:08 -0600

 In message <m0wiu61-0007RHC@plum.statsci.com> Scott Blachowicz writes:
 : Is that dependency normal for packages that use the GNU autoconf? 
 
 I think so.
 
 : It only
 : really needs 'autoheader' if you modify some file that is input to autoconf.
 : Unfortunately the 'patch' process does that.  I assume you try to do a 'make'
 : of the port and the patches happened fast enough to give the patched input
 : files the same update time as the output files, thus triggering the running of
 : 'autoheader', right?
 
 I think so.  All I typed was make, it fetched the file and then died
 when it tried to run autoheader.
 
 : Is there a reasonable solution?  I don't know if depending on autoconf is
 : quite right (as that would mean that every autoconf'd package should depend on
 : autoconf and autoconf is really for package developers, not package build or
 : install).  Or maybe I should just patch that rule out of the Makefile
 : instead?
 
 I'd patch the rule out of the Makefile, and make a patch such that you
 get the same results as if you had run the autoheader yourself.  That
 is, a patch to the files that autoheader generates.  Heck, if you did
 that in the right order, you wouldn't need to patch the Makefile at
 all, since things would be up to date, right?
 
 Warner