From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep  4 11:00:25 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 C3FE416A4BF
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu,  4 Sep 2003 11:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.securesoftware.com (mail.securesoftware.com
	[206.131.226.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1045144003
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  4 Sep 2003 11:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rzigweid@securesoftware.com)
Received: from [206.131.226.41] (unknown [206.131.226.41])
	by mail.securesoftware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FBF20C
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu,  4 Sep 2003 13:59:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v589)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <A56869D4-DF01-11D7-9CC9-00039310484E@securesoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
From: Robert M.Zigweid <rzigweid@securesoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:00:19 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.589)
Subject: Automake and Autoconf compatability issue.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:00:25 -0000


I was installing automake, autoconf and family on a clean 5.1 box with 
a freshly cvsup'd ports and ran into something that really baffles me.  
The binary names of the produced are mangled, and it looks to be 
intentional.

Using automake as an example, the binary produced is automake17.  Now, 
if you install the package manually this is completely different.  
Instead of automake17, the binary is automake-1.7.  In addition to 
this, the 'automake' script that is installed from the normal package 
is not installed at all from the ports.  This would not be a problem if 
existing packages would compile cleanly.

Why is this cross-platform set of tools, being made less compatable 
than the origainal package?  This certainly seems to be a step 
backwards to me.  If there is a good and valid reason for FreeBSD being 
made different, I would certainly appreciate knowing what it is.

Regards,

Robert M. Zigweid