Re: missing --run/not run

[Norman Gray]

Greetings,

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:39:09 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:

>> We as a project have decided to go the route of checking
>> autotool-generated files into our CVS repository, and as a result are
>> discovering the full subtleties of the consequences of that, in
>
>I suffered similar problems until I discovered AM_MAINTAINER_MODE

Thanks for this.  I'd seen AM_MAINTAINER_MODE (sorry, I should have 
mentioned that), but ended up persuaded by the largely negative 
discussion of it in the FAQ section of the automake manual.  It sounds 
as if it adds a new dimension of version-skew problems (``Well, it 
works for me! What mode are you in?  For that matter, what mode am _I_ 
in?''), and we have enough of those to be going on with.  Have you had 
this sort of problem in practice?

I'm sure there are circumstances where it could be an excellent 
solution.  However in our particular (distributed) group, I feel that 
maintainer mode would probably cause more debugging hassles and 
confusions than it would avoid.

I note that the last sentence of that particular FAQ section ends 
``...and because `missing' isn't enough if you have the wrong version 
of the tools.''  On the contrary, I think `missing' can be made to be 
enough (if I'm not missing some problem (ho ho)).

All the best,

Norman


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray                   http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow    address@hidden