Subject: Re: BUILD_DEPENDS on autoconf
To: Johan Danielsson <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/30/2002 13:25:03
[ On , May 30, 2002 at 18:42:57 (+0200), Johan Danielsson wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: BUILD_DEPENDS on autoconf
> email@example.com (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> > Because they are enormous, and they are not consistent between even
> > compatible versions of autoconf.
> Which is exactly why a working version should be included in the
You're talking about entirely different concerns. Pkgsrc is not the
package author. Pkgsrc does not distribute copies of configure scripts,
working or otherwise.
Pkgsrc sometimes needs to fix a non-working configure script that was
distributed by the package's author. Since such scripts are generated
their source file need to be fixed and they need to be regenerated from
those source files. The "configure.in" (or "configure.ac") file is the
source for the "configure" product.
Pkgsrc must not try to patch both "configure.in" and "configure" -- it
must patch only the "configure.in" source and then (in the pre-configure
step) regenerate the "configure" script.
Pkgsrc maintainers must not assume they are the final authorities on the
changes necessary to the "configure.in" sources either. There's full
and necessary support in pkgsrc for local patches and this support must
extend to "configure.in" too, even when pkgsrc itself first patches the
There is a very tight web woven between all these things. You cannot
unravel one corner of it to appease the unjustifiable desires of a few
people -- the whole thing will instantly unravel if you try.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>