From owner-cvs-all Wed Oct 24 14:30:36 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3E037B401; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f9OLUUQ47740; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:30:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:30:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200110242130.f9OLUUQ47740@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Maxim Sobolev 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 In-Reply-To: <200110242124.AAA99755@ipcard.iptcom.net> References: <200110242110.OAA09404@windsor.research.att.com> <200110242124.AAA99755@ipcard.iptcom.net> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: 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