Patching configure - Or Not

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:33 PM, skip at pobox.com wrote:
>    Michael> I need to change the way configure works for a port.  Is  
> it
>    Michael> better to patch configure or change the underlying files  
> and
>    Michael> regenerate configure?
>
> Patching configure is going to be very fragile.  Your patch will  
> almost
> certainly break with the upstream authors upgrade to a newer version  
> of
> autoconf.  If you absolutely, positively have to patch something,  
> patch the
> inputs to configure, not configure itself.


On the other hand, if you patch the inputs to configure, you then  
depend on having autoconf installed on the end user's machine.

It's mostly a matter of what you as the port maintainer wants to deal  
with. (Since you're going to be the one updating the port to newer  
versions, you might not mind regenerating your configure patch when  
necessary).
--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20080207/cfc39212/PGP.bin