On 11/25/05, Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) I consider them part of a well rounded development system.
They are only required by pacakge maintainers and I doubt there are many who LFSers who need to use these pacakges. BTW, just because configure checks for it does not mean it is a dependency :) > 2) Probably the more important one: if you apply a patch to a package > that modifies files like configure.in and Makefile.am, you need autoconf > and automake (respectively) to rebuild the configure and Makefile.in files. > > This kind of patch might not be too common (most just modify configure > and Makefile.in directly as that is much easier to work with), but I > have seen it happen. The version of autoconf and automake that is used by the original maintainer is needed in case we have a patch that does the above. For example, if the package uses automake-1.4 and autoconf-2.13, you cannot just run get by with the autoconf-1.9.x and autoconf-2.59. You would need those automake-1.4.x and autoconf-2.13 to regenerate the Makefile.in and configure files. I have currently installed all autoconf and automake versions in parallel on my system. I will soon be submitting a hint for review on how to install these pacakges in parallel and select the appropriate one based on the some envars. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
