On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:15, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > 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. > > > > > 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. > Adding AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to configure.{ac,in} also stops this. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part