Hi, autoreconf's (version 2.69) man entry for --force states: > consider all files obsolete
autoreconf's html manual entry for --force states: > Remake even configure scripts and configuration headers > that are newer than their input files (configure.ac and, > if present, aclocal.m4). (link: http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/autoreconf-Invocation.html) When invoking autoreconf with both --install and --force options, it calls automake --add-missing --force-missing, which in turn "causes standard files to be reinstalled even if they already exist in the source tree" (quoted from automake's html manual, link: https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/automake-Invocation.html). I couldn't deduce this from autoreconf's manual entries, which led to a problem that I posted about on the Unix & Linux Stack Exchange site (link to post: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/197238/103132). So, IMO, the man entry for autoreconf --force is a bit vague, while the html manual entry for it simply doesn't mention all the relevant information. They don't even say the same thing in different ways, they just say something completely different. I think this could be fixed to avoid further possible confusion. For example the entries in automake's manuals are much clearer. For example, the autoreconf entry for --install could say: > copy missing auxiliary and standard files if they don't > exist instead of simply: > copy missing auxiliary files The autoreconf entry for --force could say something like: > consider all auxiliary and standard files obsolete and > overwrite them instead of just: > consider all files obsolete IMO, this would make the consequences much more evident. Cheers and HTH, Emil Laine <laine.e...@gmail.com>
