[Freeassociation-devel] Makefile.am issues in libical

[dothebart]

>Mi Sep 03 2008 12:29:26 CEST von Debarshi Ray in 0000000000.Sent Items> an
>"Wilfried Goesgens"  
>Betreff: Re: [Freeassociation-devel] Makefile.am issues in libical
>
>  
>>> There will be no way to patch .in's
>>

>  
>I don't want you to patch .ins. Fix the .ams.
>
>  
>>> you can call bootstrap yourself if you like to.
>>

>  
>See, I know this dance about Autotools. bootstrap will not help
>because running recent versions of the Autotools chain will modify
>many of the .ams, .ins and configures. This will make the whole patch
>messy.
>
>  
>>> Maybe Art can tell you which version he used.
>>

>  
>Automake 1.9.6. It is written in the generated files.
>Autoconf/Automake upstream believes developers should be using the
>most recent versions since distributing files generated by older (read
>potentially buggy) versions is not advisable.
>

  

Using latest autofoo and its improved language features means trouble on *BSD
and other systems. Been there, done that.  
>
>  
>>> Since there is no usage of the C++ version in the outside world so far
>>the
>>> primary focus should be that  its building clean without.
>>

>  
>This is a lame reason to not fix your Makefiles.
>

  

Why? the demand is just, that it dosn't throw warnings etc. if built without
the C++ Part.  
>
>  
>>> The debian.org debs for example neither build the  C++ part, nor the
>>python
>>> wrapper.
>>

>  
>So?
>
>Happy hacking,
>Debarshi
>
>
>

  

Why distribute a library nobody is using? If there is demand, theres a reason
to invest time in it. Else its a waste of valuable time I can spend doing
better things. (the same for python and java bindings)  

Wilfried Goesgens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/libical-devel/attachments/20080903/db528f7f/attachment.html>