On 10/17/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007/10/16 21:45, Marc Espie wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 07:45:24PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > To be more reasonable (i suppose most ports using autotools in tree > > > won't change their build scheme before earth blows itself, maybe > > > because of autotools), i'd like to add my tiny-little p.o.v to this > > > discussion : > > > > > > When upgrading a port, it costs little time to check that newest > > > version still needs a particular AUTO*_VERSION, and remove the option > > > if ports compiles with 'normal-latest' autotools version. But digging > > > through whole tree to test each port would be a real waste of time. > > > > > > Landry > > > > > Nope, even this is a waste of time. > > If you use another version, you run the risk of running into hidden > > incompatibilities that we have to fix later.... > > $ locate patch-|grep configure|wc -l > 618 > > ok, they won't _all_ be autoconf, but this gives you a rough idea how > often autoconf users don't take account of making things work properly > on other OS, which is rather the point of autoconf isn't it? > > with a lot of time and work testing and finding and fixing problems, > the end result will be packages which work how they do already. i can > think of better ways to use that time... [...]
Okay, after reading a lot of you, I guess it won't be wise to proceed with fixing autoconf versions in the ports. Being a newcomer to OpenBSD, and having some programming experience, I'd like to contribute back. Can you point me to some better ways to utilize that time? Thanks! Oh, and for those who were wondering, I am a "he". :-) Good day (evening) folks! -Amarendra -- Pune, India.
