On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:02:10PM -0500, 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. > > Roland mentioned in another message that he seemed to consider this a > bug too. Since Thomas mentioned he no longer objected to keeping > generated files in CVS, I would imagine that Roland will probably commit > the configure next time he touches configure.in.
Right, thanks for the correction. I got it all mixed up in my memory. Then the autoconf call and depenency will go. > > 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. > > If the automake patches are accepted, we also get a 'make dist' target - > We should probably base the packages on that so that the package doesn't > need to generate those files. Probably. OTOH, the current patches to the Hurd for Debian touch Makefiles. So there are certainly issues. 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/
