This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Mauve project.
Re: mauve ChangeLog Makefile.in aclocal.m4 configure
- From: Stephen Crawley <crawley at dstc dot edu dot au>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Stephen Crawley <crawley at dstc dot edu dot au>, Brian Jones <cbj at gnu dot org>, crawley at sources dot redhat dot com, Mauve News Group <mauve-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>, crawley at piglet dot dstc dot edu dot au, crawley at piglet dot dstc dot edu dot au
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:09:01 +1000
- Subject: Re: mauve ChangeLog Makefile.in aclocal.m4 configure
> Stephen> Or put it another way, why should the CVS respository contain
> Stephen> your versions of these files, rather than mine?
> Why are you rebuilding the files at all?
It is important that we don't accidentally end up with Mauve depending
on a specific version of autoconf / automake / aclocal. The easy way to
avoid this is for people regularly use Mauve with different versions of
the tools. If ./configure is not in CVS, this happens as a matter of
In the past, I have also needed to make changes to acinclude.m4,
configure.ac and/or Makefile.am. This obviously necessitates a
rebuild of ./configure, etcetera.
Right now, I use some little shell scripts to configure Mauve with
various combinations of Java compilers and VMs. These scripts rebuild
./configure, etcetera as a precaution; e.g. in case I've changed one
of the source files.
I will check to see if Mauve runs for me using your most recent version
of ./configure from the CVS and let you know what happens.
> Let's add maintainer-mode and leave the files. I'd prefer it since it
> makes our automated testing simpler -- it is one less dependency we
> need to worry about.
There are other simple ways to solve the "problem" of ./configure not
being in the repository. Besides, I think it is better for the auto
testing to exercise the dependency regularly, than it is to discover it
has been broken months ago; e.g. when someone installed a new version of
[Is maintainer-mode relevant to this discussion?]