On 26-Jun-00 at 06:15, Alexander Mai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 05:58:30AM -0400, Rick Scott wrote:
> > The autoconf bit is probably my fault. I probably built the release in
> > question at home. I'm not sure why we get the chmod errors, I don't see
> > them at home. The Makefile has been set to specifically ignore the errors,
> > so I assume that it is sometimes expected. The nightly is indeed in need
> > of a tune up. All of the prefix stuff at the top could be replaced by
> > ensuring that the PATH finds the proper tools. Then all of the individual
> > auto* runs should be replaced by a CVSMake, it will decend into the
> > various packages, this is how the releases are now made. Ideally the
> > tarball should be made with a "make dist".
>
> Hmm, I think having the path hardcoded is actually better
> (who knows who will some time change PATH w/o an idea what it might break,
> etc.) My modifications in nightly should it bring now in sync with
> make_release.
There are still all the individual libtool/auto* calls on the various packages.
We are much more likely to keep the CVSMake's in line than we are the
nightly/make_release scripts. In this case we must establish a sane PATH.
For example, the test tree is getting automake'd with different options than
the other trees. Is this the right thing to do???
>
> What has to be done to create lesstif-current.tgz by "make dist" ?
You have to sucessfully run a ./configure. Plus, I think, some extra stuff goes
into the nightlies, whether or not this is a good thing is still a question.
>
> --
> Alexander Mai
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
