[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.


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: