On 2011/08/31 10:29, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > On 2011-08-31, Antoine Jacoutot <ajacou...@bsdfrog.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> > >
> > >> Guys, I'm just curious, why post-patch is better than pre-configure? I
> > >> would go for pre-configure than post-patch.
> > >
> > > This is a good question...
> >
> > In post-patch you can 'make patch' then examine the generated
> > configure script before running it, IMO this makes it a little easier
> > when debugging problems with autoconf/m4.
>
> Well in this case when using CONFIGURE_STYLE=autoconf, you want to
> patch configure.ac, not the generated configure right?
Yes, of course - I'm referring to checking the newly generated
configure script after autoconf has been run but before the script
itself is run, to make sure I haven't broken things when patching
the m4 input files, etc).
So the workflow can be like this:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
(^^ this is an alias, wrksrc='cd `make show=WRKSRC`')
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make patch
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
which I think is a lot nicer than:
$ make extract
$ wrksrc
$ cp configure{,.old}
$ cd -
$ make configure
$ ...when configure starts running, hit ^C...
$ cd -
$ diff configure{.old,}
