Re: Use of automake & friends vs. just running configure
I demand that Sam Hocevar may or may not have written...
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004, Darren Salt wrote:
>>> 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 [...]
>> If you're using something like dpatch, I suggest that you use a patch file
>> specifically for this kind of thing - and make sure that it's applied
>> last. That way, I find, it's nicely manageable.
> This has not worked very well for me, making the build/clean operation not
> idempotent and causing build errors on the second try due to timestamp
> skews after unpatch.
Was that with or without AM_MAINTAINER_MODE? (I'm using it - see
<URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/progs.unstable.html>, xfuse-*.)
> In such packages I now use dpatch for everything except the autotools
> stuff.
Fair enough. I'm doing this to avoid extra build dependencies.
--
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland
| RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army
| Let's keep the pound sterling
If you're feeling good, don't worry; you'll get over it.
Reply to: