From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Mon Jan 11 1999 - 17:08:31 EST
On Jan 11, 1999, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> (b) Is doing so in such a way that causes CVS conflicts
> This is unacceptable.
Agreed. I just need a confirmation that these conflicts were in the
stamp-h[12].in files. We've just fixed this problem in automake (I
had introduced it yesterday, with a `brilliant' idea I had, that ended
up introducing noise and big potential for conflicts in the stamp
files).
It should be fixed in my next commit. I'll also prepare a new
snapshot of automake, just in case.
> I also don't want modification to .in to happen simply because I use cvs
> update instead of cvs checkout.
This shouldn't happen regularly, except, maybe, for the top-level
Makefile.in, that depends on configure.in but is updated before it.
All the other Makefile.ins should be updated in the proper order,
i.e., after configure.in and the corresponding Makefile.am
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:38 EDT