On 26 February 2012 10:01, Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> wrote: > But the more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of creating > an empty directory whose existence is required by aclocal in order for > it to function at all. Moreover, the objection you've raised might be > applied to the aclocal and automake (unversioned) scripts themselves, > but that doesn't prevent us from installing them.
It's your prerogative to apply the patch, but I disagree with your reasoning here. If you don't like empty directories being required, go back to the old automake 1.11.1 behaviour where aclocal handled it properly. The mechanisms that Debian uses to handle unversioned aclocal and automake are not appropriate for a README file. I suspect it will end up not being installed. And that will mean unnecessary divergence from upstream, which I don't like to see. :( -- Tim Retout <dioc...@debian.org>
