Which is best?
dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Nov 16 16:02:05 PST 2010
"Randy McMurchy" <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>Aleksandar Kuktin wrote these words on 11/16/10 17:14 CST:
>> One other thing: If one uses an automated build method, he (myself)
>> be disinclined to mess with the $PATH variable. This is regarding
>> "third patch" idea.
>> Besides, the autostuff should be regarded as a vital part of the
>> 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.
>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
>that is completely modified due to the difference in the autofoo. DJ
>not intend for end users (readers) to have to generate anything, he
>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
>and recreate the configure script. If DJ creates a small patch, we can
>always update the book to use his patch.
Actually I thought that we all agreed that the above its the best method. Warnings fine, as long as no hard incompatibilities, this is most transparent.
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
More information about the blfs-dev