Patch ./configure, or use instead?

Jim DeLaHunt list+macports-dev at
Thu Feb 17 04:15:07 UTC 2022

On 2022-02-15 01:08, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2022-2-15 19:28 , Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
>> I am working on a port[1], where I want to patch a couple of autoconf 
>> macros[2] and ....
>> The codebase supplies a script, ./ . It runs autoconf, 
>> libtool, etc. etc. and regenerates the ./configure script, 
>> incorporating the fixes from the patched macros....
>> I see two ways to solve this:
>> a) tell the Portfile to use ./ as the configure command. Let 
>> every user rebuild the ./configure script
>> b) patch the ./configure script with the same fixes as the autoconf 
>> macros....
> ...We have a shortcut for option a) by the way: 'use_autoreconf yes'. That 
> adds the needed deps for you and usually works fine on its own (plus 
> 'autoreconf.args -fi' if you want to regenerate absolutely everything 
> from scratch), but if special options are needed, you can also set 
> 'autoreconf.cmd ./'....

Thank you for the reply, Joshua.

You mention autoreconf. I just learned something new! I did not know
about autoreconf[1], a tool included in autoconf.

It looks like upstream does not use autoreconf. They have a shell script
``. For all I know it is something they created themselves.
Like autoreconf, it runs autoconf, automake, libtoolize, etc. etc. I
have no assurance that I can replace it with autoreconf.

Thus I think I will try running ./ in place of ./configure,
and see how far that gets me. It is good to know that patching
./configure is not out of the question.

Best regards,
     --Jim DeLaHunt


More information about the macports-dev mailing list