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
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:12:36PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> $ 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 th
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 ad
Landry Breuil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, I check the included configure script and use
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 :
>
>
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
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:50:52AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:52:27AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2007/10/16 16:10, Amarendra Godbole wrote:
> > > A peculiar thing I noticed with many ports is they need different
> > > versions of
> > > autoconf installed
On 10/16/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This isn't a problem.
>
> The OP seems to think it is or he (she?) wouldn't waste his time
> emailing the list or making an offer to a considerable amount of work to
> fix it. Rather than just dissing him, why not enlighten us as to wh
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:52:27AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2007/10/16 16:10, Amarendra Godbole wrote:
> > A peculiar thing I noticed with many ports is they need different versions
> > of
> > autoconf installed (set through the AUTOCONF_VERSION variable) - so in the
> > end, my system
On 2007/10/16 16:10, Amarendra Godbole wrote:
> A peculiar thing I noticed with many ports is they need different versions of
> autoconf installed (set through the AUTOCONF_VERSION variable) - so in the
> end, my system has 3 versions after a couple of port builds (2.13, 2.59, and
> 2.61).
This is
Hi,
A peculiar thing I noticed with many ports is they need different versions of
autoconf installed (set through the AUTOCONF_VERSION variable) - so in the
end, my system has 3 versions after a couple of port builds (2.13, 2.59, and
2.61). The 2.61 version seems to be the latest one.
In order to
11 matches
Mail list logo
