[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, 13 Jun 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Do you want to maintain the list in my debian/rules?  Here is a possibly
> complete list of what would have to be added to (and maintained in) my
> rules binary target in order to ensure that autoconf and automake need not
> be there:

Who's talking about maintaining a list? Surely it's possible to use find,
sort, and some other tools -- or a little script -- to generate a file
with an ordered list of files that need to be touched. Then:

for i in "`cat autofiles`"
  touch $i

There you go.

[long list of 'touch' commands]

You didn't manually enter each of those in this mail, did you?

> Want me to not call autothings in my build target?  Fix dpkg so the above
> shit need not litter my rules file.

Actually, the problem is patch, not dpkg. Then again, since dpkg calls

> > > I refuse to defy Debian policy because you don't like build-deps on
> > > autoconf and automake.
> > 
> > He's right to not like it. It's a mess.
> > 
> > If you're concerned about automake trying to regenerate configure and
> > friends because patch doesn't care about timestamps, then 'man touch' is
> > your friend.
> See above for just how clean a solution that really is.

Let's call both ideas a mess, if you so like. However, you're not defying
policy by doing what has become common practice.

wouter at grep dot be

"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
  -- From the movie "Antitrust"

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: