On 7/26/2010 10:10 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > On 26.07.2010 15:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 7/26/2010 5:30 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: >>> I'm a bit undecided whether to port some changes between APR and >>> APR-UTIL branches: >>> >>> - r780882 (wrowe): fix vpath building for xml/expat (removing >>> "configure" target in Makefile.in) >>> The change is in the 1.3.x branch, but neither in any older nor newer >>> branches. >> >> I think forward porting is fine, this wasn't much more than an mkdir, >> right? > > You removed running autoconf to create configure: > > @@ -52,8 +52,6 @@ > top_builddir = . > > > -AUTOCONF = autoconf > - > INSTALL = @INSTALL@ > INSTALL_PROGRAM = @INSTALL_PROGRAM@ > INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA@ > @@ -98,9 +96,6 @@ > $(SHELL) configure ; \ > fi > > -configure: configure.in > - $(AUTOCONF) > - > config.h: config.h.in config.status > CONFIG_FILES= CONFIG_HEADERS=$(CONFIG_HEADERS) \ > $(SHELL) ./config.status
Sorry, I should have read more closely before sending. autoconf is a packaging tool. Not a build too. This didn't belong in Makefile, since it's simple enough to have small timing issues when checking out or unpacking files from an archive, which triggers such innocuous looking statements. Forward porting would be terrific; does this issue even exist on 0.9 branch though?
