Re: infrastructure for autoreconf

[Tobias Nygren <tnn%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:37:06 +0100
Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> wrote:

> * On 2019-08-16 at 17:32 BST, Tobias Nygren wrote:
> 
> > We have quite a few packages that TOOL_DEPEND on autoconf/automake and
> > override the pre-configure target with a rules that does
> > "cd ${WRKSRC} && autoreconf".
> > 
> > This pattern is cargo culted all over the tree and I think we can do
> > better, at least for the straight forward packages. Either we could
> > extend GNU_CONFIGURE to accept other values than yes/no, for example:
> > 
> > GNU_CONFIGURE=	regenerate
> > or maybe
> > GNU_CONFIGURE=	autoreconf
> > 
> > Or we could introduce a new companion variable.
> > 
> > GNU_CONFIGURE=	yes
> > USE_AUTORECONF=	yes
> > 
> > I prefer the first option for being the most compact.
> 
> Me too.  I prefer the "autoreconf" option.
> 
> Would this handle adding the required USE_TOOLS automatically?  I'd
> quite like that too.

Yes, I would like that as well. If the package has any unusual tool
requirements, invocation requirements or needs legacy autoconf213 I
think it's ok to let those odd packages keep managing it manually
for now rather than having an all encompassing solution.