dpatch on Makefile.in?

Matt Zimmerman mdz at ubuntu.com
Tue Jun 21 13:25:36 CDT 2005

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:

> 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".

Yes, but be sure to regenerate it ahead of time, and NOT run automake at
build time.  So, either patch Makefile.am and Makefile.in together, or patch
Makefile.am in one patch and maintain a separate "regenerate autotools"

> > 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.


 - mdz

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list