Op wo 07-01-2004, om 13:57 schreef Daniel Kobras: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:36:25PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > I'm trying to find a good way to manage changes to configure.in > > as patches. > > Until now, running aclocal, autoconf and others from debian/rules > > was considered as a bad practice. So, people run them manualy out > > of the debian packaging. > > > > However, doing like this is annoying especialy when changes to > > configure.in go with some changes to source files: I'd like to > > keep everything in a single (d)patch. > > I usually split it up into two dpatches: eg. 10_foo.dpatch containing all > the manual changes, including those to Makefile.am, configure.in etc., > and a 11_foo_fixup.dpatch comprising of the auto-generated changes to > Makefile.in, configure etc. Works quite well, and keeps interesting and > boring parts apart. As an added bonus, this also fixes the issue with patching autotools-related files: since patch does not care about timestamps, if you create one patch with changes to both configure.in and configure, you may end up with a configure.in which has a more recent mtime than it's related configure, especially on the slower architectures, resulting in automake trying to regenerate it. If you put them in two distinct patches and ensure the autogenerated files are patched after the source files, as you suggest, then configure cannot have a more recent timestamp than configure.in (of course, the same applies to Makefile.in vs Makefile.am, and so on). -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and the real reason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend