Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > But another question to ask is if that is the case why not simply touch
> > all of the files to the same time after the patching and before the
> > make? That also forces everything to appear up to date too and doesn't
> > need AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to be
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bob Proulx writes:
But another question to ask is if that is the case why not simply touch
all of the files to the same time after the patching and before the
make? That also forces everything to appear up to date too and doesn't
need AM_MAINTAINER_MOD
Bob Proulx writes:
> But another question to ask is if that is the case why not simply touch
> all of the files to the same time after the patching and before the
> make? That also forces everything to appear up to date too and doesn't
> need AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to be added.
Sure, that also work
Ineiev wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Another place where the default behavior frequently breaks is if one is
> >applying a patch to both the generated file and the source file, usually
> >because one explicitly *doesn't* want to re-run Automake (often because
> >there's some incompatibility with
On 02/08/2013 01:40 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 13:26, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> But maintainer-mode won't help you here; it will just cause make to ignore
>> some remake rules that require maintainer tools, so you are *more* likely
>> to end up with a subtly and silently broken
Ineiev writes:
> On 02/08/2013 08:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Another place where the default behavior frequently breaks is if one is
>> applying a patch to both the generated file and the source file,
>> usually because one explicitly *doesn't* want to re-run Automake (often
>> because there's
On 02/08/2013 08:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Another place where the default behavior frequently breaks is if one is
applying a patch to both the generated file and the source file, usually
because one explicitly *doesn't* want to re-run Automake (often because
there's some incompatibility with th
immanuel litzroth writes:
> Once again... this is biting us too so we usually add the AM_MAINTAINER
> mode ourselves. This scenario is 100% recognizable and a major source of
> problems for us.
I also religiously use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE for all of my packages because I
always want to be able to t
Once again... this is biting us too so we usually add the AM_MAINTAINER
mode ourselves. This scenario is 100% recognizable and a major source
of problems for us.
Immanuel
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 19:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > So you want to
We have had a lot of problems with this in our company, where I have
to keep explaining the issues involved. So strong agreement here.
Immanuel
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 16:18, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > (Side note: using AM_MAINTAINER_MODE these
On 08/02/2013 13:26, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> But maintainer-mode won't help you here; it will just cause make to ignore
> some remake rules that require maintainer tools, so you are *more* likely
> to end up with a subtly and silently broken package (or at least one that
> is in an inconsistent
On 02/08/2013 12:37 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 19:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> So you want to allow users to disable maintainer-mode rules in every
>> package?
>
> Yes. Where users here is "distribution packagers".
>
>> Better risk an extra rebuild than to miss a required one
On 07/02/2013 19:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> So you want to allow users to disable maintainer-mode rules in every
> package?
Yes. Where users here is "distribution packagers".
> Better risk an extra rebuild than to miss a required one IMVHO. Or
> understand why timestamps get mangled, and fix
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
The reason is that while it makes total sense for developers and users
alike, it's a pain for package maintainers, as sometimes timestamps end
up mangled by patches, and we get unexpected maintainer-mode rebuilds...
Better risk an extra rebuild tha
On 02/07/2013 06:17 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 16:18, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> (Side note: using AM_MAINTAINER_MODE these days is generally a bad idea
>> IMHO; we should find a way to deprecate its usage in documentation, and
>> eventually start warning at runtime if it is use
15 matches
Mail list logo
