Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:30:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/automake Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/devel/automake/files patch-ab patch-ad Message-ID: <200110242130.f9OLUUQ47740@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110242124.AAA99755@ipcard.iptcom.net> References: <200110242110.OAA09404@windsor.research.att.com> <200110242124.AAA99755@ipcard.iptcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:24:26 EEST, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> said: > Not actually. I believe that mojority of USE_AUTOMAKE/USE_AUTOCONF > ports use that just because the vendor due to some unclear reasons > supplied distfile without configure and/or Makefile.in scripts. Not that I've ever seen. If they use automake, then surely they use the built-in distfile-manufacturing targets that automake provides. I could imagine that being the case if the ``distfile'' is just checked out from a CVS repository. > Patching configure instead of configure.in isn't much more > difficult task The issue is one of wastefully-large patches, not difficulty in creating them. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110242130.f9OLUUQ47740>