Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

[K. Richard Pixley]

Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I really dislike this proposal as it stands.
>
> While I'm fine with a position that says "for normal users, don't have
> Makefile.in depend on Makefile.am", I *want* that rule as a package
> developer and even as a release engineer.
>
> I already have way too much stuff I have to remember to do, and adding
> an extra step to make sure that generated files are up-to-date is just
> asking for more work and problems.
>   
distcheck could also be used to verify this based on file stamps and to 
provide a reminder.
> Put another way, if somebody want to have sufficient mechanism to allow
> these behaviors as choices, and if somebody wants to have a way to
> specify that strict GNU coding policy can be used that's fine with me.
> Just be sure to make it trivial enough that I can override that policy
> choice locally so I can work more efficiently.
I think we're all agreed on this.  The question is whether the onus for 
difference should be placed on the user or on the developer.  In both 
cases, the deviation is intended to be trivial.  However, a developer is 
expected to understand that the change is necessary and how to make it 
while a simple builder may not.

In what way does my proposal fail to address your needs?

--rich