dpatch on Makefile.in?

[Martin Pitt]

Hi!

Magnus Therning [2005-06-22  7:33 +0100]:
> 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?

Because it is evil, error prone, and not robust. Such packages are
much more likely to fail to build because of newer autotools versions,
they add a build dependency to the autotools files, take longer to
build and when cleaning them and building the source package they blow
up the package diff.gz massively.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt        http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050622/5a9bf9df/attachment.pgp