dpatch on Makefile.in?

[Magnus Therning]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
>Hi Magnus!
>
>Magnus Therning [2005-06-21 14:09 +0100]:
>> Should a distribution specific patch modify Makefile.in or Makefile.am?
>
>I prefer to patch Makefile.am and regenerate Makefile.in since it is
>cleaner and the .am file is the "actual source".

That's exactly what I thought as well.

>> My personal preference would be modify Makefile.am instead and have a
>> specific patch (e.g. 99_autoreconf) that is applied as the very last
>> one.
>
>This is in fact done that way in many packages. However, if the fix is
>very small, and the changed text is the same in .am and .in (e. g.
>adding a new supported translation language), it is also a common habit
>to just patch .am and .in in the same dpatch.

Yes, that would be a possibility of course. In the package I looked
(gringotts) there were no patches to Makefile.am, only to Makefile.in.
I didn't really like that.

Do you put in a patch with the regeneration of Makefile.in, or do you
handle it in some other way?

/M

-- 
Magnus Therning                    (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus at therning.org
http://therning.org/magnus

Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish.
Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship
by patent law on written works.

Anyone who creates his or her own cryptographic primitive is either a
genius or a fool. Given the genius/fool ratio for our species, the
odds aren't very good.
     -- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050621/d4f3c6f7/attachment.pgp