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:
> touch configure.in && \
> touch aclocal.m4 && \
> touch configure \
> touch docs/html/Makefile && \
err, why do you think you need to bother with the Makefiles? configure will
generate them from you, and configure does not need automake or autoconf...
> I also just realized I forgot to include libtool's files in that list. I
> suspect though that my point is proven.
Hmm, I have little experience with libtool, but unless it is evil incarnate,
it should not force you to have autoconf and automake to work. Heck, it
should not force you even to have libtool around, to work, I am told...
> non-hackish solution, but can't be bothered to fix dpkg so the disgusting
> hack isn't necessary?
It is fixed in 1.10. I hope we get that into Debian soon (i.e. that woody
ships soon, and we thaw).
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com