Re: maintainer mode

[Andy M. Helten]

This is also the situation that occurs when checking out an older version
of my software (using a CVS tag for example) to make a distribution.  If
timestamps are not just right automake/autoconf are required.  And in general,
the people that receive this software are not the least bit interested in
modifying automake/autoconf files nor do they have the autotools installed
(they are not using linux or cygwin).

Without great care in aligning timestamps after each 'cvs commit' of configure.ac
and configure, for example, the next 'cvs checkout' will produce a distribution
that requires autotools.  Is there are way to handle this other than AM_MAINTAINER_MODE?




Eric Siegerman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:17:00PM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> > Warning: I'm going to give the "AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is pure evil
> > on a stick" point of view.
> >     
>
> > Now there are three cases:
> >  1. The user unpacked your package, and then run ./configure and make.
> >     [...]
> >  2. The user modified configure.ac, or Makefile.am, or a sibling.  
> >     [...]
> >  3. Your package is broken, it contains some files which are
> >     [...]
> >       
>
>  4. The user imported your package into CVS (as I often do).
>     Because CVS checkouts are done in alphabetical order, foo.in
>     might well have a later timestamp than its corresponding foo,
>     without the files' content having changed.  So the
>     maintainer-mode tests charge ahead and try to rebuild foo,
>     very probably with an incorrect version of the autotool in
>     question.  Kaboom.
>
> > Let's see what happens when AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is used:
> >
> >         
>
>  4. The package just builds.
>
> --
>
> |  | /\
> |-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
> |  |  /
> "Outlook not so good."  That magic 8-ball knows everything!
> I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
> 	- Anonymous
>
>
> .
>
>