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

Re: The automake issue, and why crippling 1.6 is a bad plan

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 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

Reply to: