On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:43:39AM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> 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.
Can post-patch somehow affect update-patches (for those few rare ports)?
--
best regards
q#
