[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re:, question

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re:, question
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:20:36 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080708 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Hash: SHA1

According to address@hidden on 8/21/2008 5:34 AM:
> Hello all,
> As I couldn't find anything on this specific issue, better ask...
> After being able to compile my code with help of autotools, now i want to 
> deliver it as a package. In this case I dont want to give out my
> and Makefile.ams in order to avoid some extra fiddling from others. 

Why?  If your package is GPL, then not distributing is a violation of your license (the GPL requires
that your source code include the files that you edit in order to modify
how a generated file is produced, even if the generated files are also
part of your distribution).  And if your package is not GPL, then you are
still making it harder for anyone who wants to fix bugs in your configure
script to do so.

Remember, the point of autoconf is to create a configure script that runs
independently of whether autoconf is installed.  Thus, even though you
should distribute, your users do not have to have autoconf
installed, nor do they have to fiddle with  But they should
still be allowed to fiddle with it, if they know what they are doing.

> My question is: Is it possible to deliver the source with only really 
> necessary 
> autotools files and not give and Makefile.ams? If yes, how?
> Which files form the mimimum of working copy of autotools?

You are doing yourself and your users a disservice by not shipping and

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]