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`"
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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org