On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:03:09AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 09:53:04AM +0100, Marcel Telka wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:32:34PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > > > > - Would it be better to patch configure.ac instead of configure? > > > > > > > > When I would patch configure.ac the configure needs to be either > > > > patched too or > > > > regenerated. Regeneration on the fly needs some extra tools like > > > > autoconf. > > > > Patching of both configure.ac and configure would technically end in > > > > very > > > > similar situation as I have now where I patched the configure only. > > > > During the > > > > build nobody cares about the configure.ac content. > > > > > > Huh? We don't have autoconf installed on build servers? > > > > We do. But additional complexity is not good if I can easily avoid it. :-) > > Ok, though you might want to ask the SFWNV GKs about that. Personally I > think we should patch configure.ac, run autoconf, then ./configure, but
In general, yes. > don't feel strongly enough about the matter. (My preference results > from: a) it's easier to understand and patch configur.ac than configure, > b) that's what you'd have to do in order to contribute patches upstream. > In this case the patch is already in the head upstream, so there's no > harm in patching only ./configure.) I agree. The current configure patch is just an interim solution until new mutt is released upstream. Thanks. -- Marcel Telka RPE, Systems
