On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:26:45AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > 2) This patch is probably wrong in the sense that there's no good reason > for us to call autoconf.
Well, we don't keep the generated files in CVS. So what I could do is run autoconf manually when doing the package, but that is just one more manual step I need to explain or document to future packages and that can go wrong. It's a side effect of tracking CVS I guess. > I also have a slight bias in that I sent in a patch for autoconf 2.5x > support recently and I would rather see that applied. =) Definitely ;) If we do another upload before that, we can fix that build depends bug. Otherwise we will get it fixed by applying your patch. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
