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?


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

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