Proposed rework of autotools call structure from port Makefiles

Joe Marcus Clarke marcus at
Fri Jun 17 02:17:51 GMT 2005

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 18:43 -0700, Ade Lovett wrote:
> Adam Weinberger wrote:
> > Is specifying the exact versions always necessary? Is it possible to
> > examine a or something to determine the version of
> > libtool/auto* needed, and then run that? That would also help with
> > things like the recent libtool13->libtool15 sweep, if one could just
> > define USE_AUTOTOOLS=autoconf and the build system could intuit the rest.
> Unfortunately, it's been my experience that such auto-detection of the
> "required" version is insanely prone to error.  There are so many
> different styles of generated scripts (particularly for autoconf and
> automake), that such parsing would be extremely tricky.
> That's not to say that it's impossible, but I think it's beyond the
> scope of what I'm trying to do here -- it could certainly be considered
> at a later date.
> On reflection, I'm wondering whether it would make sense to have two
> variables, USE_AUTOTOOLS and WANT_AUTOTOOLS, each with just a simple
> list of things that are needed.  This is more in spirit with other
> USE/WANT variables, and doesn't add too much complexity.
> Thoughts?

Just clarification.  Would, for example, libtool15:env be equivalent to
USE_INC_LIBTOOL_VER=15?  I'm trying to get a handle on this :env thing.
I have to agree with Adam that WANT_AUTOTOOLS is a bit of a misnomer.
However, I'm not sure this :env suffix is very clear either.  Maybe it
just needs some getting used to...


> -aDe
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"
PGP Key :
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list