Subject: Re: dealing w/ builds that run autoconf/automake
To: matt <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/12/2000 14:42:49
On 11 Jan 2000, matt wrote:
> i'm working on an upgrade of the gnucash package, and it wants to
> regenerate some internal configure and Makefile.in files if it finds
> autoconf and automake installed.
> is it better to force it not to use those packages, or to patch both
> Makefile.am and Makefile.in (and similarly configure.in and configure)?
I have done the later once or twice, with usually a note embedded in
the patch to configure to the effect that it's a generated file. Just
make sure it follows the patch to configure.in in sort order. Same
principle for Makefile.am and Makefile.in.
For maketool, I just patch configure.in and run autoconf. I have
corresponded with the author, though, and he's committed to making it
build on NetBSD without patches, so it should pay off in the long run.
Judgement is required in each case. Patches to configure.in (and
Makefile.am) are slightly more trouble, at first, but they're an
easier sell to the author, and they're a little easier to carry
forward if he doesn't buy it, IMHO.