More about x-packages

[Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade]

Ross Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:35 -0200, Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade wrote:
>>> What's wrong with using make distcheck? To me it's one of the major
>>> benefits of using autotools in the first place.
>>   I have nothing agains't distcheck. But at the moment, it is also adding
>> some generated files to the tarball, the X Server packages increases, after
>> bz2'ed by around 2MB, but still this isn't the major issue, as I believe
>> it could be fixed, if considered wrong, in "make distcheck" itself.
>
> By "generated files" do you mean configure, Makefile.in, and so on?  If
  Yes, and I understand the concept of "auto" tools (well, understand a 
bit :-)

> so, that is by design: if you don't include those you require that the
> person building the software has automake/autoconf/libtool installed.  A
> tarball built with "make distcheck" can be installed with just sh and

  Unfortunatelly, at least for the moment, I am also regenerating some other
files, so just after running configure, the x11-server.spec also runs:

pushd include && make xorg-server.h dix-config.h xorg-config.h && popd

  But this is due to a patch I wrote, that is still not considered
upstream quality, and allows killing clients/server if it is in an infinite
loop somewhere, as it will handle keyboard events like mouse events, i.e.
using sigio, but I may try to find another way to have the proper
setup in the "xorg sdk".

> make, that's the entire point of autotools. ;)
>
> Ross

  :-) Well, I expect that people that generate binaries from sources will
care to install autotools, but I see the point of having the generated
files, as it may take significant time to regenerate them, due to the
extensive tests. For example, monolithic X Free86 would build everything
in less than 20 minutes on an average P4, while modular Xorg will take
a few hours, and most of the time is spent on autotools scripts.

Paulo