[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: [Linphone-developers] head configure errors

From: Kowalski, Francois-Xavier
Subject: RE: [Linphone-developers] head configure errors
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:27:41 +0100

strk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:48:05AM +0100, strk wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:41:08AM +0100, Kowalski, Francois-Xavier
>> wrote: 
>>> FYI, the autotools team took care of this case.  Their basic advice
>>> -- documented in the info pages -- is to deliver in the source
>>> distribution the aclocal.m4 the maintainer generated when doing
>>> ./ under the name acinclude.m4.
>> Interesting. Any online reference of this ?

Web-page of the info page

> Actually, It is completely fine *not* to distribute the macros with
> releases, what I'm debating is wheter we should keep a copy of them
> in the CVS repository. Do autotools guys have an advice for this as
> well ?

I have undergone problems with another software (partysip) which uses
specific macros but does not deliver them: it is then un-possible to edit
the|ac or, because aclocal lacks the macros
definition.  Only ./configure is left possible.  That's a delivery choice:
do you want developpers to be able to do some development work based on
"make dist" output, or do you require them to hook to always hook to CVS.

If you go one step forward & remove the macros from the CVS, it will
developper's life even harder if they do not uwse the exact same distro as

My portability advice is: do not deliver the macros as-is, but rather as an
acinclude.m4, but let them into CVS.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

reply via email to

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