On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 22:36, Joseph Carter wrote: > > If you make the changes to the configure.in, you (as the maintainer) run > > autoconf yourself, the source package doesn't need to build-depend on > > it. > > That's reasonable when it works. It is not, however, entirely practical > for large packages which actually do need to regenerate these things and > then go through and manually touch 92 files in a specific order to ensure > that nothing gets regenerated. No, I think the build-dep on automake and > autoconf is appropriate in this case, if only because it is the solution > which is less of a gross hack. > I don't, AM_MAINTAINER_MODE will remove the need to touch all those files (it makes it so it doesn't generate all the "rebuild autotools files" rules aren't generated unless --enable-maintainer-mode is passed to configure). If all else fails, and you *really* need to run autotools on the build platform (I really can't see an unfixable reason for this) then you should build-dep on the right version of automake and call the versioned binary not the alternative. > SDL, of course, works with any version of autoconf 2.13 or greater and any > version of automake 1.4 or greater. And as long as I have the technical > ability to test previous and future versions, it will continue to work > that way. > There may be subtle differences that you don't know about. Do you really test every version of automake, autoconf and every variant on every build architecture? Scott -- Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part