RE: maintainer mode

[Robert Collins]

> -----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
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. 

> 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
files).

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