Re: [changeset] Re: When do I need autogen and configure?

[John W. Eaton]

On  8-Feb-2009, Thorsten Meyer wrote:

| John W. Eaton wrote:
| > The original idea of having both octMakefile and Makefile was that the
| > Makefile would be a simple file that any version of Make could run so
| > it should not have any targets like .PHONY that are specific to GNU
| > Make.  I think we have deviated from this goal, but not by much, so it
| > should be easy to fix that.  Instead of .PHONY, Makefile uses a target
| > called FORCE, so the effect is the same as long as a file called FORCE
| > is not accidentally created.
| > 
| > Also, the top-level Makefile should not be generated by configure so
| > that if users just unpacked Octave and typed "make" the top-level
| > Makefile would just check for octMakefile and it if was not present
| > print some messages telling people to run configure.  I'm not sure why
| > it is now distributed as a .in file, as that was never the intent.
| > Also, it should not have any substitutions in it anyway.
| > 
| In the attached patch, I tried to do what you sketched above. Could you
| have a look, especially if the changes in octMakefile.in are correct?

I fixed the clean targets in octMakefile.in to not delete Makefile and
then applied this patch.

When you move a file, you can use

  hg rename old-name new-name

and then if you use the diff --git option, the renaming will appear in
the changeset without listing the diffs (as adding one file and
removing another).  I recommend adding

  [diff]
  git = 1

to your ~/.hgrc file to make this the default.

Thanks,

jwe