On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:41:33AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Ports does the same thing: hand tweaks stuff instead of > pushing the patches back to the projects that originated > it.
*sigh* Terry I respect your programming knowledge, but you are wrong here. I send out a *LOT* of patches to the authors of ports I maintain (and I know others that do so also). You might be surprised at the number of software authors that either 1. don't care that the package is not portable, or 2. wont answer their email. > It's far, far better that the Makefile runs the > autoconf/automake/configure/etc. on behalf of the contrib > code, with no hand-tweaked files dragged in after the > config has already been run. That would be nice, but the problem is autoconf/automake/configure/etc. is WAY too sensitive to the environment in which it is running. As one example, the C++ API supported by GCC. When configuring it looks at the existing C++ API and matches it. Well, a while back I wanted to change the C++ API. There is no way to do this using `configure'. However, the way I do build the toolchain it is VERY DETERMINISTIC and I am able to set how I want things to work in the end. This removes dependencies on the current environment. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message