Which is best?
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Nov 16 15:26:59 PST 2010
Aleksandar Kuktin wrote these words on 11/16/10 17:14 CST:
> One other thing: If one uses an automated build method, he (myself) may
> be disinclined to mess with the $PATH variable. This is regarding DJ's
> "third patch" idea.
> Besides, the autostuff should be regarded as a vital part of the system
> and care should be taken that it always works properly.
Actually, what DJ's method is, is to use the same version of autoconf
to recreate the configure script that was used by the Apache team. Doing
that, the configure script should only be modified in the parts drug in
from the .m4 file, resulting in a very small patch.
My way (using a different version of autoconf) creates a configure script
that is completely modified due to the difference in the autofoo. DJ did
not intend for end users (readers) to have to generate anything, he would
just have created a very small patch that updated both the configure
script and the .m4 file.
All moot, I'm about to commit the change using the very small patch I
sent in a previous message. The users will then run the autoconf program
and recreate the configure script. If DJ creates a small patch, we can
always update the book to use his patch.
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 188.8.131.52 i686]
17:22:00 up 15 days, 16 min, 1 user, load average: 0.37, 0.58, 0.49
More information about the blfs-dev