On 2007/10/16 21:45, Marc Espie wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:45:24PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote: > > Hi, > > > > To be more reasonable (i suppose most ports using autotools in tree > > won't change their build scheme before earth blows itself, maybe > > because of autotools), i'd like to add my tiny-little p.o.v to this > > discussion : > > > > When upgrading a port, it costs little time to check that newest > > version still needs a particular AUTO*_VERSION, and remove the option > > if ports compiles with 'normal-latest' autotools version. But digging > > through whole tree to test each port would be a real waste of time. > > > > Landry > > > Nope, even this is a waste of time. > If you use another version, you run the risk of running into hidden > incompatibilities that we have to fix later....
$ locate patch-|grep configure|wc -l 618 ok, they won't _all_ be autoconf, but this gives you a rough idea how often autoconf users don't take account of making things work properly on other OS, which is rather the point of autoconf isn't it? with a lot of time and work testing and finding and fixing problems, the end result will be packages which work how they do already. i can think of better ways to use that time...