Patching configure - Or Not

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Feb 7, 2008, at 11:19 AM, skip at pobox.com wrote:
>>> Patching configure is going to be very fragile.
>
>    Daniel> On the other hand, if you patch the inputs to configure,  
> you
>    Daniel> then depend on having autoconf installed on the end user's
>    Daniel> machine.
>
> Why would that be a problem?  Can't the portfile just specify the
> dependency?


It can, but it installs stuff on the end user's machine that they  
might not otherwise want/need.

Depending on how much of a change it is to the configure script,  
either approach can make sense.
--
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/20080207/1c7121df/PGP.bin