Karl Berry writes:
> What is not clear to me is the reasoning of that heuristic. You seems
> to suggest that it has been introduced to avoid having to know the order
> in which autoconf, aclocal, automake, ... has to be run. Have you any
> reference regarding that?
>
> I've been
Mathieu Lirzin writes:
> Jack Kelly writes:
>
>> It is certainly valuable to test that you can bootstrap your package
>> from autoreconf up, but I don't think `make maintainer-clean' is the
>> best place to do that. The `git-clean' command removes untracked files
>> from the worktree, and I'm su
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for the quick reply.
What is not clear to me is the reasoning of that heuristic. You seems
to suggest that it has been introduced to avoid having to know the order
in which autoconf, aclocal, automake, ... has to be run. Have you any
reference regarding that?
Hello Lukas,
Lukas Fleischer writes:
> Currently, the automake test suite fails with recent Python versions. I
> submitted two patches to address these issues to the automake-patches
> mailing list ~7 weeks ago. Any chance we can get these bugs fixed
> anytime soon?
>
> [1] http://lists.gnu.org/
Hi,
Currently, the automake test suite fails with recent Python versions. I
submitted two patches to address these issues to the automake-patches
mailing list ~7 weeks ago. Any chance we can get these bugs fixed
anytime soon?
Regards,
Lukas
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/
Hello Jack,
Jack Kelly writes:
> Karl Berry writes:
>
>> [snip automake manual blockquote]
>>
>> But nowadays, especially since autoreconf exists, it does not seem
>> unreasonable to me to want to delete Makefile.in, configure, etc. It
>> is just as easy to run autoreconf (or equivalent) as con
Hello Karl,
Karl Berry writes:
> Hi - the automake manual has (for many years) said:
>
> @code{maintainer-clean} should not delete anything that needs to exist
> in order to run @samp{./configure && make}.
> @end itemize
>
> We recommend that you follow this same set of heuristic
