[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [lvm-devel] fix for link pthread-related link failure on Debian



Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 08:29:25PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I've just rerun autoconf and committed the new, regenerated file.
>> This is one of the reasons I really like to have complete and
>> accurate dependencies.  Does anyone know why we lack this particular one?
>
> Because we ship the 'configure' file etc. and that is all that we
> support in build environments: autoconf etc. should not be a requirement
> to build the code.
>
>> Would anyone object to my adding the missing rule?
>
> Only if not done in such a way that it was optional and disabled by
> default in build environments (though a non-fatal warning message would
> be OK).

How about making it so autoconf is required, only if you modify
configure.in or otherwise fiddle with mtimes to make it look like
configure is out of date?

> E.g. configure --enable-autoreconf would require the autoconf tools to
> be present and then cause the makefiles to detect when they are
> out-of-date and attempt to reconfigure themselves and relaunch etc.

Why cater to developers who lack the required version of autoconf?
Anyone clueful enough to build from source also knows enough to install
autoconf if they don't have it already.  As long as the requirement is
documented, no one can complain.  Heck, I'll even provide a script to
download/check-sig/build/install autoconf into a private directory.
I did that for another project (qpid) that also required automake
and libtool.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]