"Randy McMurchy" <[email protected]> wrote: >Aleksandar Kuktin wrote these words on 11/16/10 17:14 CST: >> One other thing: If one uses an automated build method, he (myself) >may >> be disinclined to mess with the $PATH variable. This is regarding >DJ's >> "third patch" idea. >> Besides, the autostuff should be regarded as a vital part of the >system >> and care should be taken that it always works properly. > >Actually, what DJ's method is, is to use the same version of autoconf >to recreate the configure script that was used by the Apache team. >Doing >that, the configure script should only be modified in the parts drug in >from the .m4 file, resulting in a very small patch. > >My way (using a different version of autoconf) creates a configure >script >that is completely modified due to the difference in the autofoo. DJ >did >not intend for end users (readers) to have to generate anything, he >would >just have created a very small patch that updated both the configure >script and the .m4 file. > >All moot, I'm about to commit the change using the very small patch I >sent in a previous message. The users will then run the autoconf >program >and recreate the configure script. If DJ creates a small patch, we can >always update the book to use his patch. >
Actually I thought that we all agreed that the above its the best method. Warnings fine, as long as no hard incompatibilities, this is most transparent. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
