automake -a

Marc Glisse marc.glisse at
Mon Sep 23 16:20:47 CEST 2013

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> On 2013-09-23 15:37:20 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Niels Möller wrote:
>>> E.g., I think the COPYING file should stay in the repo, even if automake
>>> -a currently installs an identical file.
>> Ah, I hadn't noticed COPYING, precisely because the file is identical ;-)
>> Ok with keeping it if you want to...
> I think that you must keep it: you choose the license, not the
> autotools developers.

I would assume that the autotools get the information on which licence is 
wanted from somewhere and don't add a random licence, but keeping it 
sounds natural indeed.

>> I did an automake -a -c -f, followed by hg status to see what had changed,
>> and pruned that list a bit.
> How about doing something like the script proposed by
> Daniel Richard G. for MPFR:
> #!/bin/sh
> # "autoreconf -f" will clobber our INSTALL file with a generic one if we
> # don't move it out of the way
> mv -f INSTALL INSTALL.$$.tmp
> autoreconf -v -f -i -W all
> rm -f INSTALL
> mv -f INSTALL.$$.tmp INSTALL
> rm -rf autom4te.cache

We could. I think avoiding -f is safer. Starting from a clean checkout 
when you upgrade your autotools isn't that hard. I hadn't realized that 
autoreconf -i -s would call automake -a, which is good.

So a minimal change to use autoreconf -i -s instead of our current long 
line would be nice.

A script could also be used to get the latest config.guess as 
configfsf.guess, but we probably don't want that (have to make sure it 
interacts ok with the specialized config.guess).

Marc Glisse

More information about the gmp-devel mailing list