dpatch on Makefile.in?

[Magnus Therning]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 09:08:18AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
>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.

(Sorry for this, I just couldn't resist :-)

Ah, good arguments! Especially the one about build dependency on
autotools.

I don't think the argument regarding 'blowing up the package diff.gz'
holds water though. Since there now is a dpatch containing the generated
changes it actually blows up the diff.gz even more.

/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.

As it is used, with the average user not bothering to verify the
certificates exchanged and no revocation mechanism, SSL is just simply
a (very slow) Diffie-Hellman key-exchange method. Digital certificates
provide no actual security for electronic commerce; it's a complete
sham.
     -- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies
-------------- 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/20050622/7d307cff/attachment.pgp