Re: hurd patch
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:02:10PM -0500, Jeff Bailey 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.
Right, thanks for the correction. I got it all mixed up in my memory.
Then the autoconf call and depenency will go.
> > 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.
Probably. OTOH, the current patches to the Hurd for Debian touch Makefiles.
So there are certainly issues.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
Reply to: