On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:36:45PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > The question is whether the "real" use of autotools in existing projects > is just assumed to never happen.
Well, I can't say I've thought about it much, but I have fixed autotools breakage before, in beyond-BLFS programs. Most of the time, it's not because I'm patching configure.ac or Makefile.am, but it's because the package didn't come with configure or Makefile.in generated already (i.e., broken package). In general... hmm. Looking at the hint, it appears that it'd be hard to start using the multi-version stuff after any one version has been installed without --program-suffix. So maybe we should do something like this: 1) Install autoconf-2.59, automake-1.9, and whatever libtool in LFS, using --program-suffix 2) Install symlinks (/usr/bin/autoconf -> autoconf-2.59, etc.) so that the only-installed version works without a version spec. 3) Add text saying something like "not all packages that require autotools will work with the versions we installed. If you have problems running auto*, then you may need to use an older version of the package; see <hint> for a way to install different versions side-by-side". Biggest advantage is that we don't have to change BLFS. ;-) I believe the hint should work fine if the previous auto* programs were installed as symlinks. (Generating the symlinks might be hard, though. Hmm...)
pgpO02g0eAdAx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
