Re: Best practice for cleaning autotools-generated files?
Sean Finney writes ("Re: Best practice for cleaning autotools-generated files?"):
> On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That's fine, you patch the input, rerun the autofoobar stuff, and then
> > build the source package with diff. If you're using a patch queue
> > system, or a vcs, you arrange for the autogenerated autofoobar output
> > changes to be committed along with the corresponding input change.
>
> and then you end up with either (a) masses of changes to upstream files
> in your local branch which will cause merge conflicts (and
> aesthetically, ew, yuck.) or (b) a patch in your patch queue which will
> very likely not apply in the next upstream release.
Yes, you get some trivial-to-fix conflicts: you simply rerun
autofoobar and the affected files are fixed.
> autofoo stuff examines timestamps on various files, so it's possible
> that if configure gets patched before configure.ac, and
> AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is set to a specific value, that ./configure ends up
> wanting to regenerate ./configure at build time. double fail.
The package should be configured so that this does not happen.
Ian.
Reply to: