On 04/21/2015 01:04 AM, Emil Laine wrote: > Hi, > > autoreconf's (version 2.69) man entry for --force states: >> consider all files obsolete
Which in turn is generated from 'autoreconf --help' output, which is intentionally terse. > > 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) This is also the official documentation in the info pages. > > 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. One is supposed to be a short summary of the other. But if you have ideas for better wording, I'm all ears; patches are welcome to improve either wording. > > 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 I'll see if I can turn these wording suggestions into patch form. > > IMO, this would make the consequences much more evident. Also, have you asked on the automake list whether INSTALL should be treated more like COPYING, by offering a way (perhaps via optional flag) to leave a custom version intact instead of forcefully rewriting it to the "standard" version? It sounds like part of the confusion is not autoconf's fault, but automake's insistence on treating '--force --install' as bringing all files up-to-date to their newest "standard" counterpart by forcefully undoing any customizations. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
