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...
