Hello, On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:55:01AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stepan Kasal wrote on Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:40:04AM CEST: > > > This would silently break lots of `bootstrap' scripts that call > > > aclocal > > > automake > > > autoconf > > > > It wouldn't break them, I think, it would only slow them down. > > During the first `make', automake would update all Makefile.in's and > > the build would continue. But yes, it wouldn't be nice. > > I believe you assume too much. You assume that, at the time `make' is > called, the autotools are available and the same versions as at the time > `bootstrap' is called; also, that the source tree is writable at `make' > time; [...] yes, I'm assuming all of that. If I were to do a build from a read-only tree, I would first create a tarball by `make dist', and that `make dist' would update all the Makefile.in's. > also assume that the user won't start to issue `make' in several build > trees at once? [...] And if I were to run several VPATH builds in parallel, I'd definitely use a read-only source tree, to prevent conflicts. Hence I'd create a tarball, too. > also, that `AM_MAINTAINER_MODE' is not in effect. I don't think this would matter here. If AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is in effect, the depedency of Makefile.in on $(top_srcdir)/configure would be suppressed, so it wouldn't matter that configure is newer than Makefile.in. But yes, I always tend to assume that no one uses AM_MAINTAINER_MODE. ;-) > And even with those assumptions I'd call that breakage: the bootstrap > script stops to perform its main function, namely to ensure that the > autotools have been run properly. OK, I adopt your position, it would be a breakage. So we have yet another reason why Alexandre's solution is superior. Have a nice day, Stepan _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
