dpatch on Makefile.in?

Magnus Therning magnus at therning.org
Wed Jun 22 01:33:15 CDT 2005


On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:25:36AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman 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".
>
>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" patch.

Just to be a little diffiult :-) Why not generate it at build time?

/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.

BTW, I learned a lovely new acronym today: "Law Enforcement Agency
Key" -- LEAK.
      -- Charles H. Lindsey
-------------- 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/20050622/1bf7167b/attachment-0001.pgp


More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list