On 08/09/2012 10:59 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> On 08/09/2012 08:12 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>>>> >>>> That's why the files generated by maintainer tools should be distributed. >>>> Once they are, and the distribution tarball gets not botched somehow, the >>>> rules requiring such maintainer tools should not be executed on the use >>>> machine anyway, independently from the presence or absence of maintainer >>>> mode. >>> >>> There are some broken (but popular) filesystems >>> >> Just out of curiosity: which ones? > > Windows FAT. > Urgh. In my book, this falls squarely in the realm of "Doctor, it hurts me when I do that! -- Don't do it then" ;-)
> There are packages which don't use 'make dist' to release their package > (they use tar or zip) so timestamps may not be coherent. > If they want to go behind Automake's back in some areas, they can (and that is fully legitimate in fact); but then the the burden is on them to ensure the expected invariants are respected in those areas as well. > This is evil but likely not related to maintainer-mode since maintainers of > such projects would not be likely to be aware of it. > > I suppose if Automake-NG removes --enable-maintainer-mode, then it is pretty > easy to add one back. > Yes; and the point is that such new "package-specific" maintainer-mode would only impact areas where it might actually be useful (your example about the documentation been a good use case IMHO) rather than ending up mangling some fundamental part of the build system. Thanks, Stefano
