Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote: Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I would go for pre-configure than post-patch. This is a good question... -- Antoine
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote: Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I would go for pre-configure than post-patch. This is a good question... In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote: Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I would go for pre-configure than post-patch. This is a good question... In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier when debugging problems with autoconf/m4. Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right? -- Antoine
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:50:09PM +0100, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:48:24PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
[cc'ing ports@]
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:24:54PM -0400, Brad wrote:
-pre-configure:
-@cd ${WRKSRC} \
+post-patch:
+@cd ${WRKSRC} env \
AUTOCONF_VERSION=${AUTOCONF_VERSION} \
AUTOMAKE_VERSION=${AUTOMAKE_VERSION} \
${MAKE_PROGRAM} -f Makefile.dist
It would be nice if this stuff was standardized across the tree.
There is a mix of the two targets being used throughout the tree
for calling autogen.sh/Makefile.dist or whatever means of
regenerating the autoconf/automake bits in a project.
AFAIK, the standard targets (if CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf or automake)
are all tied to post-patch. So your diff is good and people maintaining
ports with special autoconf/automake targets should work on similar
diffs. That is: run autoconf and/or automake during post-patch *if*
you have to run it explicitely.
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
Most projects do ship a configure and a configure.ac. Also Makefile.in
and Makefile.am.
In those projects, you patch stuff, and then running autoconf and automake
again is a natural step of finishing the patches (propagating the changes
you just made into the generated files). There's also the issue of
touching the right files in the right order so that the internal
dependencies of automade Makefile don't trigger and fix you up.
For projects that *don't* ship a configure, but rely on autogen.sh or
similar, the correlation is less obvious, and there's indeed a question
of whether to run during post-patch or pre-configure.
But running everything during post-patch makes for a more consistent tree,
so it offsets the scale fairly heavily.
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On 2011/08/31 10:29, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
This is a good question...
In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated
configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier
when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to
patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right?
Yes, of course - I'm referring to checking the newly generated
configure script after autoconf has been run but before the script
itself is run, to make sure I haven't broken things when patching
the m4 input files, etc).
So the workflow can be like this:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
(^^ this is an alias, wrksrc='cd `make show=WRKSRC`')
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make patch
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
which I think is a lot nicer than:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make configure
$ ...when configure starts running, hit ^C...
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011/08/31 10:29, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
This is a good question...
In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated
configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier
when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to
patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right?
Yes, of course - I'm referring to checking the newly generated
configure script after autoconf has been run but before the script
itself is run, to make sure I haven't broken things when patching
the m4 input files, etc).
So the workflow can be like this:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
(^^ this is an alias, wrksrc='cd `make show=WRKSRC`')
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make patch
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
which I think is a lot nicer than:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make configure
$ ...when configure starts running, hit ^C...
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
Fair enough. The fact that post-patch is used has always been an
annoyance to me but I get we all have different workflows :)
Anyway, I was just curious.
--
Antoine
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:43:39AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011/08/31 10:29, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure?
I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
This is a good question...
In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated
configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier
when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to
patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right?
Yes, of course - I'm referring to checking the newly generated
configure script after autoconf has been run but before the script
itself is run, to make sure I haven't broken things when patching
the m4 input files, etc).
So the workflow can be like this:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
(^^ this is an alias, wrksrc='cd `make show=WRKSRC`')
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make patch
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
which I think is a lot nicer than:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make configure
$ ...when configure starts running, hit ^C...
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
Fair enough. The fact that post-patch is used has always been an
annoyance to me but I get we all have different workflows :)
Anyway, I was just curious.
Can post-patch somehow affect update-patches (for those few rare ports)?
--
best regards
q#
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011/08/31 10:29, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
This is a good question...
In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated
configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier
when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to
patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right?
Yes, of course - I'm referring to checking the newly generated
configure script after autoconf has been run but before the script
itself is run, to make sure I haven't broken things when patching
the m4 input files, etc).
So the workflow can be like this:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
(^^ this is an alias, wrksrc='cd `make show=WRKSRC`')
$ cp configure{,.old}
$vipatch configure
function vipatch {
if [ ! -f $1.orig ]
then
cp $1{,.orig}
fi
vi $1
}
Landry
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:49:58AM +0100, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:43:39AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011/08/31 10:29, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than
pre-configure? I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
This is a good question...
In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated
configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier
when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to
patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right?
Yes, of course - I'm referring to checking the newly generated
configure script after autoconf has been run but before the script
itself is run, to make sure I haven't broken things when patching
the m4 input files, etc).
So the workflow can be like this:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
(^^ this is an alias, wrksrc='cd `make show=WRKSRC`')
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make patch
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
which I think is a lot nicer than:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make configure
$ ...when configure starts running, hit ^C...
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
Fair enough. The fact that post-patch is used has always been an
annoyance to me but I get we all have different workflows :)
Anyway, I was just curious.
Can post-patch somehow affect update-patches (for those few rare ports)?
Yeah. That's one reason why the suffixes for various patch steps are all
tweakable. Of course, if normal patches and another process both affect
the same file, you're fucked.
I intend somewhere on my overly too long todo list to look at quilt, and
see if something can be done about managing patches in a saner way.
Don't hold your breath, I would be very happy if someone beats me to it,
which shouldn't be too difficult.
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
[cc'ing ports@]
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:24:54PM -0400, Brad wrote:
-pre-configure:
-@cd ${WRKSRC} \
+post-patch:
+@cd ${WRKSRC} env \
AUTOCONF_VERSION=${AUTOCONF_VERSION} \
AUTOMAKE_VERSION=${AUTOMAKE_VERSION} \
${MAKE_PROGRAM} -f Makefile.dist
It would be nice if this stuff was standardized across the tree.
There is a mix of the two targets being used throughout the tree
for calling autogen.sh/Makefile.dist or whatever means of
regenerating the autoconf/automake bits in a project.
AFAIK, the standard targets (if CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf or automake)
are all tied to post-patch. So your diff is good and people maintaining
ports with special autoconf/automake targets should work on similar
diffs. That is: run autoconf and/or automake during post-patch *if*
you have to run it explicitely.
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On 30/08/11 5:48 PM, Matthias Kilian wrote:
[cc'ing ports@]
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:24:54PM -0400, Brad wrote:
-pre-configure:
- @cd ${WRKSRC} \
+post-patch:
+ @cd ${WRKSRC} env \
AUTOCONF_VERSION=${AUTOCONF_VERSION} \
AUTOMAKE_VERSION=${AUTOMAKE_VERSION} \
${MAKE_PROGRAM} -f Makefile.dist
It would be nice if this stuff was standardized across the tree.
There is a mix of the two targets being used throughout the tree
for calling autogen.sh/Makefile.dist or whatever means of
regenerating the autoconf/automake bits in a project.
AFAIK, the standard targets (if CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf or automake)
are all tied to post-patch. So your diff is good and people maintaining
ports with special autoconf/automake targets should work on similar
diffs. That is: run autoconf and/or automake during post-patch *if*
you have to run it explicitely.
Yup. That's all I was getting at with my comment.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: UPDATE: avidemux - disable faac
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:48:24PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
[cc'ing ports@]
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:24:54PM -0400, Brad wrote:
-pre-configure:
- @cd ${WRKSRC} \
+post-patch:
+ @cd ${WRKSRC} env \
AUTOCONF_VERSION=${AUTOCONF_VERSION} \
AUTOMAKE_VERSION=${AUTOMAKE_VERSION} \
${MAKE_PROGRAM} -f Makefile.dist
It would be nice if this stuff was standardized across the tree.
There is a mix of the two targets being used throughout the tree
for calling autogen.sh/Makefile.dist or whatever means of
regenerating the autoconf/automake bits in a project.
AFAIK, the standard targets (if CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf or automake)
are all tied to post-patch. So your diff is good and people maintaining
ports with special autoconf/automake targets should work on similar
diffs. That is: run autoconf and/or automake during post-patch *if*
you have to run it explicitely.
Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I
would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
--
best regards
q#
