Tushar Teredesai wrote: > Is there any particular reason for applying the debian patch for popt? > The only useful file that the patch patches is popt.c (for a single > fix which was not needed on my system; if needed it can probably be > achieved by a sed). Here is a list of file it patches (I ignored the > files in debian directory): > $ patch -Np1 -i ../popt_1.7-5.diff > patching file Makefile.in > patching file aclocal.m4 > patching file config.guess > patching file config.h.in > patching file config.sub > patching file configure > patching file install-sh > patching file ltmain.sh > patching file missing > patching file popt.c > > The patch patches configure but when make runs it causes the autotools > to run needlessly. The book incorrectly states that configure.in was > patched hence we need to let autotools run. > > IMO, we should remove the patch from the book and just make it a CMMI > installation.
The only source for popt that I know of is debian. We are just using the latest version. How much difference does autotools make on a 0.2 SBU package anyway? Your suggestion rolls back a current package for a negligible gain in time. I don't agree with it. However, you are right about the explaination. The comment about configure.in should be Makefile.in. I'll fix that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
