Re: automake 1.5
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 02:31:50PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:52:46AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > Such rumours are false. Supposing the maintainer has correctly run
> > auto* by hand, the resulting sources will build just fine *without*
> > automake installed.
> >
> > The generated Makefiles will have rules that nominally run "automake".
> > But they in fact run a little script that will: run automake if present
> > on the system or, if automake is not present, just touch the "generated"
> > file(s) (the script will complain, but you can ignore that message).
>
> Rather than relying on that, it's better to make sure that all the
> timestamps are appropriate so that it won't even try to run automake.
Err, I was arguing that the absence of automake at build time is
irrelevant. Here you've skipped to an entirely different topic: the
presence of an "incompatible" automake.
> Otherwise automake might be run on a buildd that has an incompatible
> version of automake installed, and using 'Build-Conflicts: automake' to
> prevent that seems excessive.
True, though I don't know how you can ensure the timestamps are correctly
ordered if your .diff.gz contains patches against configure, Makefile.in,
and the like. I suppose you can try to "touch" things in debian/rules,
but I wouldn't want to maintain something like that! Better to just fix
the source so that it works with automake 1.5 and be done with it.
> Also, if you build without --enable-maintainer-mode, Makefile.in's
> dependencies will be disabled, so automake will never be run.
That is only true if the configure.in uses AM_MAINTAINER_MODE which
isn't too common, although it may be that rather large projects (like
GNOME?) use it in all their packages.
-S
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Reply to: