On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Andreas Fester wrote:
> I agree with Martin that autoconf and automake should not be run from
> rules, and that upstream should provide a configure script.
> ./configure; make; make install is what I expect to do as a user of
> a (original upstream) package, and IMHO the need to run autoconf makes the
In most cases this is correct, but don't forget that ./configure
is not a source file ("the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it"). If you never try to re-build these files
you can easily have a FTBFS situation without knowing it.
> whole autotools approach questionable; configure *is* the platform
Using auto* stuff is questionable. I used to be big fan of the
auto* tools, but now I try Scons :-) Well, we (the maintainers)
have to live with the approach upstream choses.
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
