On 5/23/2012 11:20 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On May 23, 2012, at 9:53 AM, marco atzeri wrote:
>> experience says that autoreconf is a good approach on cygwin,
>> it is almost standard on our package build procedure.
> I'm still curious: why? (I'm *assuming* that you're building from an official Open MPI tarball -- is that incorrect?)
> I ask because we've already run autoreconf, meaning that official Open MPI tarballs are fully bootstrapped and do not need to have autogen (i.e., ultimately autoreconf) re-run on them.
> Specifically: I'm unaware of a reason why you should need to re-run autogen (autoreconf) on an otherwise-unaltered Open MPI that was freshly extracted from a tarball. Does something happen differently if you *don't* re-run autogen (autoreconf)?
> Re-running autogen shouldn't be causing you any problems, of course -- this is just my curiosity asserting itself...
~ 90% of the time we have mismatch problems between upstream and
cygwin on autoconf/automake/libtool versions that are not cygwin
aware or updated.
As safe approuch, we prefer apply "autoreconf -i -f" as default when
building binary packages.
see cygautoreconf on