automake/autoconf

[jerryyhom at gmail.com]

On 1/18/15 5:35 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 5:22 AM, jerryyhom at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On 1/18/15 1:15 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
>>> On 2015-1-18 18:37 , jerryyhom at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I am working on a portfile for libressl.  I set some options like so:
>>>>
>>>> use_autoconf    yes
>>>> use_automake    yes
>>>>
>>>> but 'port lint --nitpick' warned that port dependencies are listed
>>>> multiple times.
>>>
>>> That's a bug, the dependencies should not be added twice in that case.
>>
>> Okay, thanks Ryan and Josh for clarifying.  I was confused by two separate issues which led me to a wrong conclusion.  I can use autoreconf though it seems like overkill in this situation.
>>
>> As for the bug, I was about to ask, as an enhancement request, if the logic which expands use_auto{tools} could also determine a unified set of dependencies.  Is this reasonable?
>
> What do you mean, "unified set of dependencies"?
>
> Whether you use "use_autoconf yes" or "use_autoreconf yes" or "use_automake yes", the build dependencies "port:autoconf port:automake port:libtool" will be added. The bug is that if you use more than one of those directives, then the three dependencies get added multiple times each, when they should only be added once each. This is a cosmetic bug but is functionally harmless.
>

I see.  Well, I am just trying to get up to speed with MacPorts, so 
which is recommended since both are functionally equivalent in this case?

"use_autoconf yes" and "use_automake yes" and ignore lint warnings

OR

"use_autoreconf yes" until the bug is fixed