On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:17:48PM +0100, Sébastien Hinderer wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the delayed response. > > Luis R. Rodriguez (2015/10/22 15:18 +0200): > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:51:17AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday 2015-10-22 07:23, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > > > >> Since coccinelle.spec does not invoke autoreconf > > > > > > > >How does the script > > > >"https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a46bef70162d17cec6b0fc6101d737989f735ee4/autogen"; > > > >fit to your view? > > > > > > 1. Running `aclocal; autoconf` is not enough. I spot a Makefile.am > > > in the source tree, so you more or less need `autoreconf -fi` > > > instead in the "autogen" script. > > Well, the Makefile.am is indeed present but not actually used so are you > really sure the change you suggest is required? > > Is there any specific problem you are trying to solve with the current > code?
Note: this was addressed to Markus. > > > 2. My point was that autogen / aclocal / autoconf / etc. > > > only needs to be run if there is no "configure" script present. > > > Because there is a configure script in the released tarballs > > > (at least there was so far), there is no need for coccinelle.spec to run > > > autogen. And if autogen/aclocal/autoconf/etc. is not run, we do not need > > > to > > > BuildRequire it. > > > > The latest tarballs do not require it but the next releases will, so > > configure > > will not be carried, so this was more of a heads up note / pro-active > > patch. > > Well, so far my idea was to not provide configure in a public coccinelle > repository but to provide it in tarballs, following an approach which I > believe is common to many open-source projects, i.e. not > version-controlling any generated file but still distribute them in tarballs. Sounds good. Luis _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
