[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Use of automake & friends vs. just running configure

On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 07:46:01PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 01:17:41AM +0200, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
>  > So, any comment / recommendation? Better to use the whole toolchain,
>  > or better to use upstream configure, when available?
>  If you can avoid running auto*, please do.
>  If you *have* to patch a Makefile or configure script, then by all
>  means, do it.  But please please pretty please, remove the cruft that
>  gets generated.  That means nuke configure, Makefile.in, Makefile and
>  other stuff on clean.  That only makes the diff bigger and noisy and
>  imposible to apply cleanly to newer upstream versions (which makes the
>  work of the security team, NMUers and other people harder, which means
>  they get pissed off at you, which means you get totally useless bug
>  reports and NMUs).
>  And specify *tight* Build-Dependencies.  People can't make up their
>  minds about which dammed version of automake and autoconf is the
>  default.
>  Another possibility is to run automake and friends by hand and include
>  all the cruft in the patch.  See comment about noisy patches above.
>  Oh, yes, please include something like debian/README.Debian.build
>  indicating any deviations from the normal expectations.

Convincing upstreams to use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE macro with automake helps.

The reason is simplify life of end users (if I can use this M$
definition) and maintainers too, because autotools versions are
tipically non compatible at source levels. Anyone can always revert
to maintainer mode with a simple --enable-maintainer-mode in configure
so I really do not see any decent and reasonable justufication to do 

Francesco P. Lovergine

Reply to: