"Dr. Rene Hexel" wrote:
> 
> [moved to tech-pkg]
> 
> "Johnny C. Lam" wrote:
> 
[...]

>   The original imlib software now contains a configure script
> (apparently created with a newer version of GNU autoconf and libtool)
> that no longer uses "ltconfig" to configure libtool.

Again, this will be because a new libtool is used, not a new autoconf.

>   For buildlink reasons (I believe), we use our own autoconf to generate
> a new configure script from "configure.in".  This configure script
> suddenly requires "ltconfig" again to configure libtool and utterly
> fails, because there is no such beast.

Johnny, Is this true?


> > > XXX: in the long run, the buildlink autoconf macros probably need to be
> > >      updated and fixed to prevent similar problems in other packages.
> >
> > This statement confuses me.  Autoconf wasn't modified in our pkgsrc to
> 
[...]

>   An alternative to updating our autoconf would be to use the original
> configure script provided by the (imlib or whatever) software.  I may be
> mistaken, but I was under the impression that buildlink was the reason
> we used to generate our own configure script from "configure.in".

This is a much safer, i.e. future proof, thing to do anyway. Patches to
configure.in should be added to a pkg *only* with the resulting patch to
configure, IMO.

Nick