[ On Tuesday, September 18, 2001 at 12:52:02 (+0200), Hubert Feyrer wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: configure.in patches in a pkg
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Stoned Elipot wrote:
> > I think it's better to include only the patch file on configure.in and have
> > the pkg depends at build time on autoconf, am I wrong ?
> 
> As autoconf depends on perl, that might not amuse some people.

I don't like perl but it doesn't bother me.

> Shouldn't be hard to ship patches for both files.

It's amazingly bad to ship patches for generated files, even if what
generates them is dependent on some other package(s).

What's worse though is that some patches in NetBSD's pkgsrc are not even
created by autoconf -- they are manual hacks.  This is BAD BAD BAD!!!!

> Of course the
> configure.in changes are of most value to the author, to which you should
> feed your changes back in any way.

there are a large number of configure.in patch files in NetBSD's pkgsrc
that are not done in ways appropriate to feed back to the package
maintainers....

Besides, no assumption should ever be made that any such feedback will
be acted upon -- that's the reason we have patch file support in the
first place!  ;-)

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>     <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>