dpatch on Makefile.in?

[Magnus Therning]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 11:01:19AM +1000, John Skaller wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 16:06 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
>>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".
>
>This is not a matter of preference or opinion.
>You must patch the source, not a file generated
>by the build.

Are you suggesting I should file a bug on a package that contains
patches to Makefile.in without any change to Makefile.am?

/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.

Due to the suspicious nature of crypto users I have a feeling DES will
be with us forever, we will just keep adding keys and cycles... There
is a parallel between designing electronic commerce infrastructure
today that uses weak cryptography (i.e. 40 or 56 bit keys) and, say,
designing air traffic control systems in the '60s using two digit year
fields. ... Just because you can retire before it all blows up doesn't
make it any less irresponsible.
      -- Arnold G. Reinhold
-------------- 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/20050622/8d031dc7/attachment.pgp