On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 -0600, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system. > > They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are > many who LFSers who need to use these pacakges. BTW, just because > configure checks for it does not mean it is a dependency :) > > > 2) Probably the more important one: if you apply a patch to a package > > that modifies files like configure.in and Makefile.am, you need autoconf > > and automake (respectively) to rebuild the configure and Makefile.in files. > > > > This kind of patch might not be too common (most just modify configure > > and Makefile.in directly as that is much easier to work with), but I > > have seen it happen. > > The version of autoconf and automake that is used by the original > maintainer is needed in case we have a patch that does the above. For > example, if the package uses automake-1.4 and autoconf-2.13, you > cannot just run get by with the autoconf-1.9.x and autoconf-2.59. You > would need those automake-1.4.x and autoconf-2.13 to regenerate the > Makefile.in and configure files. > > I have currently installed all autoconf and automake versions in > parallel on my system. I will soon be submitting a hint for review on > how to install these pacakges in parallel and select the appropriate > one based on the some envars. >
Pretty much the same deal I have done on this end, except I blatantly ripped off gentoo's setup. We should trade notes. [R] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
