On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Paul Fertser wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:11:59AM -0500, Charles Lepple wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Paul Fertser <[email protected]>
wrote:
* missing but required by the configure
scripts/augeas/nutupsconf.aug.in
scripts/hal/ups-nut-device.fdi.in
scripts/udev/nut-usbups.rules.in
Currently (r2847), you can use the "nut-autoreconf" script to
generate
these files. After the next merge from the trunk, it will be
"autogen.sh".
You're right, of course. Somehow i keep forgetting "autogen.sh"-like
scripts
are worth using sometimes. Not sure about the official autotools
developers'
position on that, but to me it feels unclean that one needs an
additional
script instead of autoreconf -i.
If there's a hook that we're overlooking, let us know. (It would be
nice to incorporate these files into the --enable-maintainer-mode
Makefile rules, but that kind of recursion makes my head spin.)
In the case of the udev/HAL rules, we are trying to mechanically
generate the rules from the USB device information in each driver. I
think the main reason for the .in files is to substitute the
@RUN_AS_GROUP@ parameter from ./configure (but I don't know if there
was another driving force there).
We basically have two classes of people building from source: those
who build from a tarball (and don't need autoconf, automake, libtool,
or the Python/Perl libraries needed to regenerate the .in files), and
those building from source control. If we invert the process to fit
the autotools framework (by having the configure script create another
script at configuration time), I think we end up putting additional
build-time requirements on users.
I haven't had time to look at the Augeas scripts in depth.
Another set of eyes on the code never hurts, though. Let us know if
we're overlooking an easier way to do this.
--
Charles Lepple
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
