Subject: Re: mk/gnu-config question/request
To: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny C. Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>
Date: 06/12/2005 18:48:10
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> -On [20050612 03:44], Johnny C. Lam (jlam@NetBSD.org) wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:57:31AM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> >> Find attached an updated patch with an auto-run target for some autotools if
> >> GNU_CONFIGURE is specified.
> >Why do we want to do this?
> Because it is the only hook I have right now to reasonably rerun the
> autotools in order to update outdated files within a given pkg so that it
> takes benefit of recent changes within the autotools (libtool specifically)
We've discussed this in the past, and we don't want to ever automatically
run the GNU autotools. We often patch configure scripts and Makefile.in
files directly since in the past, GNU autotool-generated files have
been highly dependent on having the correct minor version of either
GNU autoconf or GNU automake.
> >I don't understand why this is necessary. Packages that use libtool
> >to build shared libraries are configured to use the libtool that
> >installed by pkgsrc by devel/libtool-base.
> Yes, and it does and it depends on it and it does not solve the
> problem/issue at hand, which is not building shared libraries. It's one
> thing to replace 'libtool', it's another for ltmain.sh and libtool.m4. If
> the configure script does not contain some parts of an updated libtool.m4 it
> will never detect to build shared libraries and thus will not build them.
Packages that set USE_LIBTOOL as well as USE_TOOLS+=autoconf will
already automatically have libtool.m4 replaced with the version from
the installed libtool package (see pkgsrc/mk/tools/autoconf.mk). If
you want to also replace ltmain.sh automatically, could you please
submit a patch against autoconf.mk?
-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>