Nick Bowler writes:
>> --- libidn-1.24.orig/configure.ac
>> +++ libidn-1.24/configure.ac
>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ AC_SUBST(LT_CURRENT, 17)
>> AC_SUBST(LT_REVISION, 7)
>> AC_SUBST(LT_AGE, 6)
>>
>> +# automake 1.12 seems to require this, but automake 1.11 doesn't recognize
>> it
>> +m4_pattern_al
Hi,
I have received patches similar to the one below for several of my
projects already, and I'm beginning to think there may be something that
could be improved in automake. Why does automake 1.12 need something
that 1.11 doesn't even recognize? Perhaps a smoother way to introduce
this behaviou
Eric Blake writes:
>> build-aux/gnupload |4 ++--
>
> This is synced from automake; the fix needs to be pushed upstream to remain
> persistent.
Oops! Here is a patch against automake, we can sync it to gnupload once
this has been applied.
/Simon
diff --git a/lib/gnupload b/lib/g
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>> So I don't see where the conflict is.
>
> We do not yet have a conflict. But we nearly have it:
>
> 1) If fdl.texi gets distributed by automake as well, we get a conflict:
>"autom
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> * modules/fdl: New module, for grabbing fdl.texi.
>>
>> Automake is distributing COPYING and texinfo.tex. Why would you have
>> fdl.texi distributed by gnulib-tool, not by automake? I would not like
>> to see conflicts arise between automake and gnul
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> At least two GNU packages (gettext and libidn) now have parts of their
> source code written in C#. Simon Josefsson, author of libidn, suggests
> that C# support be added to automake. Let me here present the basic facts
&
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon,
>
>> > [Info files being built in source dir]
>
>> > When the source dir is readonly, noone can change the texinfo files. If
>> > noone can change the texinfo files, there is no need to rebuild the info
>> > files, so it doesn't matter that they'r
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> [Info files being built in source dir]
>
>> FWIW, having a read only source directory is our goal.
>
> When the source dir is readonly, noone can change the texinfo files. If
> noone can change the texinfo files, there is no need to rebuild the i
Is there a nice idiom to use for installing configuration files
(sysconf_DATA) only when they aren't already installed? Making the
configuration files noinst_sysconf_DATA and handle it separately
works, but then you would have to think about supporting uninstall and
things yourself as well.
