On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 04:03:29PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I would double-check this personally. I just recently finished a project that > asked customers to build an Apache module that depended on autoconf, automake, > and libtool. Even though I ran the equivalent of buildconf, the users needed > to > have all three tools. That may have been because of automake, but I can't be > sure and no longer have the project to double check it. > > Ryan
It sounds to me like automake is behind that. An automake-generated Makefile.in includes rules for rebuilding configure, Makefile.in, etc. You can disable those rules for casual users by adding AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to configure.in. Of course, if your timestamps line up correctly and users don't edit Makefile.am or configure.in, it shouldn't matter. Generating a distribution with `make dist' has always produced for me a tarball independent of all autotools. If any of the autotools generate build infrastructure that requires an installation of the tool to do a plain build, that's a bug. Each is designed to generate shell scripts (autoconf, libtool) or simple, in terms of `make' features used, Makefiles (automake) to do all dirty work on the target system. -Noah
