Re: Best practice for cleaning autotools-generated files?
* Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> schrieb:
> As much as I wish this had been the convention, it isn't - the convention is
> that autogen.sh *does* call ./configure (often with options suitable for
> developers of the project, whereas the ./configure defaults are more suitable
> for packagers).
Actually, I dont see that there's any convention on that.
Some packages do call configure, some don't, other even have
different script names.
It's quite unlinkely that we'll some day really have an standard,
so I've decided to set my own policies which I think are best for
distros in general (not just an specific one) and fixing packages
within the OSS-QM project.
I've written down a few lines on my policies, JFYI:
http://www.metux.de/index.php/de/component/content/article/1-software-entwicklung/57-rules-for-distro-friendly-packages.html
> For many (most? all?) autoconf/automake projects, running "autoreconf"
> is enough; that's essentially what dh_autoreconf does.
Yes, but just most of them, not all. That still leaves a lot of
extra logic for those which dont. I prefer to keep those things
out of the distro's packaging system, handle them in the individual
package itself and provide a common interface, which (for autoconf'ed
packages) looks like this:
#1: ./autogen.sh
#2: CC=.. LD=.. ... ./configure <feature-flags>
#3: make
#4: make DESTDIR=... install
cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: