On Mon, 20 May 2013, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> +cc config-patc...@gnu.org, Ben Elliston <b...@air.net.au>
> > IME, it is much better when any override mechanism make use of
> > environment variables.
>
> Yes, it was mentioned multiple times in this thread already and it was
> always forgotten. Please consider this approach.
>
> One thing was not mentioned here - if there was a CONFIG_GUESS/CONFIG_SUB
> environment variables, what would be the consequences of having it solved
> directly in config.{guess,sub} files?
> I mean, if there was defined CONFIG_GUESS environment variable, the
> config.guess could try to call 'config.guess' file somewhere in $PATH?
>
> pros: we are able to easily patch also old packages (no-need to
> autoreconfigure)
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in the
general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about the much
hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up right when we
need it for a security update.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
