dpatch on Makefile.in?

[Martin Pitt]

hi!

Magnus Therning [2005-06-22  7:31 +0100]:
> 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.

I agree, it leads to unexpected results if somebody else patches .am
and calls auto* which would just nuke the previous patch in .in.

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

If you find such a package, such a bug report would be highly
appreciated.

Thanks,

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/20050622/4771f7d7/attachment.pgp