- Update to 0.50 - Fix patches - Take maintainership
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->kwm Over to maintainer
Responsible Changed From-To: kwm->freebsd-port-bugs Maintainer was reset today
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-port-bugs->freebsd-ports-bugs fix assignee
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Please rework this patch to not use auto*tools, and instead to patch files available in the vendor tarball. No need to drop the whole auto*crap on end users...
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->pav Track
> Please rework this patch to not use auto*tools, and instead to patch files > available in the vendor tarball. > No need to drop the whole auto*crap on end users... Hi Pav, First of all, thanks for taking your time to look through this. The problem here is that kwm@ was using a non-default tarball (hosted in his personal distfile repository). He downloaded the original one, ran aclocal/autoconf/automake and created a new tarball which was being used in the port. My opinion is that we should use the "official" (?) version from Debian, which only has those 3 skeleton files: . Makefile.am . configure.ac . rules.make This (unfortunately) forces us to use the auto*tools to generate the needed files. I've decided to patch the port in this manner after finding out other *BSDs have taken this approach (of running autotools). Please let me know your opinion. If you're absolutely against this, I'll see what can be done (perhaps using a solution similar to kwm@'s). Regards, Rainer Alves
State Changed From-To: feedback->open In that case, your approach is correct. I wasn't aware of kwm's hand rolled distfiles.
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks!