[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: maintainer mode

From: Robert Collins
Subject: RE: maintainer mode
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:11:10 +1000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Tromey [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:59 AM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: Roger Leigh; Alexandre Duret-Lutz; Chadwick A. McHenry; 
> GNU Automake List
> Subject: Re: maintainer mode
> >>>>> "Rob" == Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:
> Rob> Ditto for squid. We cannot expect all our users to have automake
> Rob> + autoconf on their system. After all, the entire point of
> Rob> configure scripts and make dist is that the toolkit 
> doesn't need to 
> Rob> be present on every system.
> Does the `missing' code not work for you?

'missing' isn't the issue. The automake 1.4->1.5 and recent autoconf
2.5x dependency is the issue. There's no way we can require folk on the
*BSD platform that use ports to upgrade, and after a typical patch,
aclocal/autoconf/automake do get triggered - unless we use

> Also, the results of `make dist' should never require any 
> auto* tool to be run.  Does this fail for your users?

I don't know, and don't' care :}. My point was that the tarball
generated by make dist that the user downloads doesn't [shouldn't] need
the auto* tools available, even if they do have a local patch or two.
(assuming that the patch patches both the input and the generated

On our dev tree, we don't check in the generated files, and every
maintainer uses --enable-maintainer-mode.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]