Autotools

Bryan Kadzban bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net
Thu Dec 7 10:07:21 PST 2006


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...)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20061207/2a8894da/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list