On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> 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,}
Fair enough. The fact that post-patch is used has always been an
annoyance to me but I get we all have different workflows :)
Anyway, I was just curious.
--
Antoine
