Re: Use of automake & friends vs. just running configure
I demand that Daniel Kobras may or may not have written...
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Marcelo E. Magallon may or may not have written...
>>> 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.
> I recommend splitting it up into two dpatches: One for the bare changes
> to Makefile.am and configure.{in,ac}, and a fixup patch with the
> autogenerated changes (and a few touch statements for sane timestamps
> unless AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is on).
I should have been clearer - that's more or less what I meant (I prefer
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE), although I'd say possibly more than one for the bare
changes, so that related source code and build file patches are kept
together.
> When a new upstream version arrives, you only have to merge the base patch,
> then trivially create a new fixup patch. (When I'm in a good mood, I also
> strip unrelated changes from the fixup patch to minimize the cruft in the
> diff.)
Something like
echo -n >debian/patches/99_autotools.dpatch && dpatch-edit-patch 99_autotools
? :-)
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| woody, sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS | Toon Army | demon co uk
| We've got Shearer, you haven't
Experience is directly proportional to the number of files lost.
Reply to: