Couldn't we just call the files something different and hope that the debian packet maintainer doesn't notice that the contents are the same?
/ Martin Nilsson (saturator)
Previous text:
2004-01-26 21:38: Subject: Re: Pike @ Debian
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Per Hedbor () @ Pike (-) developers forum scribbled:
Perhaps it would be better to stop using autoconf entirely. Nobody seems to complain about Make.pl files, so perhaps that's the way to go.
I would be more than happy. There's pmk and numerous other systems of configuring software. pmk is maturing, so it might be an option in the near feature. But then, who will convert the current build system to a new standard? I would just hope that no pike would be necessary to generate the makefiles
marek
/ Brevbäraren
The point is that the contents really are _not_ the same. aclocal.m4 is a pike local file with macros for pike compilation, and does thus not belong in the directory with .m4 macros for automake and aclocal, which only contain settings for things, really.
/ Per Hedbor ()
Previous text:
2004-01-26 21:41: Subject: Re: Pike @ Debian
Couldn't we just call the files something different and hope that the debian packet maintainer doesn't notice that the contents are the same?
/ Martin Nilsson (saturator)
True, but do you care if it ends up there in Debian?
/ Martin Nilsson (saturator)
Previous text:
2004-01-26 21:45: Subject: Re: Pike @ Debian
The point is that the contents really are _not_ the same. aclocal.m4 is a pike local file with macros for pike compilation, and does thus not belong in the directory with .m4 macros for automake and aclocal, which only contain settings for things, really.
/ Per Hedbor ()
Yes, because it would most likely break things when they try to 'fix' aclocal.m4 into something that looks like automake rules.
/ Per Hedbor ()
Previous text:
2004-01-26 21:48: Subject: Re: Pike @ Debian
True, but do you care if it ends up there in Debian?
/ Martin Nilsson (saturator)
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se