On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 07:14 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I don't like this approach, because I think you are missing that > config.sub and config.guess have only been overwritten as part of > "autoreconf -f" (and not of "autoreconf"). This allows package upstreams > to implement customized versions of both of these scripts. I hadn't considered custom versions, but that sounds icky. I figure in these cases they can bump their timestamp to 9999-99-99 if they want to never use the official versions of these files, I can't think of a case where they would want that though. The use-cases you mention below, they probably just want the latest versions from config.git rather than to always use their own. > Though such cases are rare to find in mainstream packages, theses case > are quite common in cases to toolchain/OS implementors and > cross-compilation scenarios. I think people needing these particular use-cases can use my proposed mechanism instead, which should work better for them anyway since they don't need to modify every package being built nor modify their build system. > FWIW: Apart of this, in comparable situations in the past, on Red Hat > based distros, IIRC, RedHat had chosen to copy their versions of > config.guess+config.sub as part of their build-process [1] by > default[2]. This would be comparable to the dh_<something> others > mentioned before in this thread. Could you give some more details? Were the RH versions of config.guess and config.sub modified in any way or were they just newer versions from GNU config CVS/git? PS: Please CC me in reply. -- bye, pabs http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
