Re: non-upstreamed patches

[Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>]

On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 09:47 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:

> Totally agreed. We do have site cache files an a much better way of
> handling that issue would be to add the value to the site cache. In an
> ideal world I've have caught that patch and asked it to be a site entry,
> it looks like its slipped through. I'll certainly take a site file entry
> and change to drop the patch.

Ok, as I move forward I'll look at draining the patches here.  It'd be
nice if we could try harder to avoid adding new ones though - that was
my main goal with the mail.

> > Another thing that seems to be proliferating is gtk-doc workarounds.  If
> > it isn't working for you guys to --disable-gtk-doc, just tell me why and
> > I'll fix it.
> > 
> This is a mess of our own making :/. You'd probably get a bit of a shock
> if you look at our gtk-doc recipe. Since we reautoconf files, we need
> the gtk-doc .m4 file. We just provide a static copy of it. To handle the
> makefile, we just touch that.

Ah, I see.  Have you seen people.gnome.org/~walters/docs/build-api.txt ?

One of the reasons I wrote it is because in GNOME we need ./autogen.sh
scripts because there's no easy way to teach the autotools about
external dependencies.

What would you think about a patch to autotools.bbclass to just check
for autogen.sh and run it (instead of the big mess of autoreconf/etc.
hacks) if it exists?