On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Chris Bagwell <chris at cnpbagwell.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I notice one of Fedora's patches against sane-backends-1.0.19.tar.gz is > that they add back in the m4/ directory that is in CVS but not packaged > by "make dist". Thats because they need to rerun autoreconf to make > some configure.in patches take affect. > > Since we are distributing configure.in and acinclude.m4 (which > references m4 directory), I'm assuming we should be packaging the m4 > directories as well. As it stands, the end user needs to stop using > released packages and go to CVS if they make any source code changes > that require rerunning autoreconf.
Yes- this has been on my todo list for awhile. > > I'd like to help resolve this issue but need some direction from > whomever looks over the make infrastructure the most. I see a few basic > options. #2 and #3 are my preferences. > > 1) Follow include/ directories lead and place a Makefile in m4/ > directory so that its files can be packaged up. Not sure how autotools > will react to that but it probably ignores anything that doesn't end in .m4. > > 2) Change makefiles to be built using automake tools. It handles the > dirty work pretty good. It would also simplify the Makefile logic > quite a bit. Current Makefile.in look very much like a hand generated > files based on how automake would do it anyways. Any objections to > using automake? > > 3) Port over latest automake logic for DISTFILES which supports path > names and will both create these directories and copy files. This would > allow adding m4/byteorder.m4 and similar to toplevel DISTFILES in > Makefile.in and would also allow removing the unneeded Makefile from the > include/ directory and move its work to toplevel or src/ as well. Which of these works best on all the platforms on which SANE builds? #1 was my original intention... allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
