> > The other problem is that, since you're using the source tarball
> > generated by automake, you've already got Makefile.in's, and the
> > instructions in README.maint don't apply to you
>
> Well, yes and no; if I want --without-fam they do.
Ah, good point.
> It was my impression that autoheader was run with ./configure; make when i
> had an inconsistent sent of autoconf/make/libtool installed.
I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be (even if you have a bad mix of autoconf/
automake/libtool); somewhere in the autoconf info page I think they say one
of the reasons to use autoconf is that people can run configure etc. without
having to install autoconf. (Note that "I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be" !=
"I know it doesn't".)
(I know the generated Makefiles have some dependencies, where if you touch a
Makefile.am, they will try to rerun automake etc. for that file, but it might
also be--I don't know--that if the configure script doesn't find automake, it
won't do that. And either way I think it shouldn't affect people who don't
touch the Makefile.am's & any other files automake etc. thinks it owns.)
> Is it appropriate to ship a package using auto* without including the
> ./libtool file?
I *think* so, since the libtool file seems to contain platform-specific
stuff. (paths to linkers, compiler flags, whether or not shared libraries
are supported, etc.) I think it gets generated at configure time by
ltconfig and/or ltmain.sh? (which are both included in the tarball)
--Rusty
--
Source code, list archive, and docs: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/rhino/
To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe rhino | mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
|