apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Misch <n...@cs.caltech.edu>
Subject Re: apr/apr-util python dependence
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2004 05:55:02 GMT
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 04:03:29PM -0800, rbb@rkbloom.net wrote:
> I would double-check this personally.  I just recently finished a project that
> asked customers to build an Apache module that depended on autoconf, automake,
> and libtool.  Even though I ran the equivalent of buildconf, the users needed to
> have all three tools.  That may have been because of automake, but I can't be
> sure and no longer have the project to double check it.
> Ryan

It sounds to me like automake is behind that.  An automake-generated Makefile.in
includes rules for rebuilding configure, Makefile.in, etc.  You can disable
those rules for casual users by adding AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to configure.in.  Of
course, if your timestamps line up correctly and users don't edit Makefile.am or
configure.in, it shouldn't matter.  Generating a distribution with `make dist'
has always produced for me a tarball independent of all autotools.

If any of the autotools generate build infrastructure that requires an
installation of the tool to do a plain build, that's a bug.  Each is designed to
generate shell scripts (autoconf, libtool) or simple, in terms of `make'
features used, Makefiles (automake) to do all dirty work on the target system.


View raw message