On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 19:18, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > 2) This patch is probably wrong in the sense that there's no good reason > > for us to call autoconf. > Well, we don't keep the generated files in CVS. So what I could do is run > autoconf manually when doing the package, but that is just one more manual > step I need to explain or document to future packages and that can go wrong. Roland mentioned in another message that he seemed to consider this a bug too. Since Thomas mentioned he no longer objected to keeping generated files in CVS, I would imagine that Roland will probably commit the configure next time he touches configure.in. > Definitely ;) If we do another upload before that, we can fix that > build depends bug. Otherwise we will get it fixed by applying your > patch. If the automake patches are accepted, we also get a 'make dist' target - We should probably base the packages on that so that the package doesn't need to generate those files. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- When you get to the heart, use a knife and fork. - From instructions on how to eat an artichoke.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part