On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:15:23PM +0100, 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. > > > > > > 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. Stop. If automake is doing that, maintainer mode is enabled. Your build is going to break in unexpected ways sooner or later, because dpkg-source doesn't preserve timestamps. You *need* to make automake stop doing that anyway, whereupon what you describe ceases to be an issue. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature