On Thursday, March 20, 2014, David Evans <<a href="mailto:devans@macports.org">devans@macports.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 3/20/14 3:01 PM, Adam Mercer wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Eric A. Borisch <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'eborisch@macports.org')">eborisch@macports.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> What was broken that needed fixing (by the original change)? Is there a<br>
>> particular port that needed the change? Is there another way to fix it<br>
>> without modifying automake?<br>
>><br>
The answer is yes, any port that uses AM_PYTHON_PATH to discover the<br>
Python install<br>
prefix will fail on MacPorts (or any other installation of Python into a<br>
non-standard path)<br>
without intervention and there are quite a few.<br>
<br>
In the past this has been handled typically by applying a similar patch<br>
to the configure file<br>
provided with each project being ported. This works and the patch here<br>
does not interfere<br>
with this because the configure file is not being regenerated.<br>
<br>
However, increasingly, ports need to use autoreconf or even autogen.sh<br>
to regenerate configuration<br>
files prior to build for some other reason (intltool perl issues for<br>
instance). This again effects a<br>
large number of ports. In this case, patching of the configure file is<br>
impractical and the required<br>
patch to <a href="http://configure.ac" target="_blank">configure.ac</a> amounts to replacing AM_PYTHON_PATH with custom<br>
code that is often<br>
package specific. This change to automake makes that unnecessary.<br>
<br>
Have to head home now but will follow up later this evening. In the<br>
meantime, please don't revert<br>
this change on your own as there are many ports that WILL be broken.<br>
If, we, as a group decide<br>
that that is the preferred approach, I will make the change after the<br>
effected ports have been re-written.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
PS What ever happened to the doctrine that if you mix code in other<br>
installation prefixes with MacPorts<br>
ports, all bets are off and results are not guaranteed?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Dave,</div><div><br></div><div>Any updates on the ports that were fixed / simplified by this patch? I've heard it said, and seen multiple requests for "which ones?" and "where are the tickets?"</div>
<div><br></div><div>Can you please shed some light on this?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div> Eric<span></span> </div>