Issue 393 in protobuf: Allow configure to disable maintainer mode

42 views
Skip to first unread message

prot...@googlecode.com

unread,
May 31, 2012, 5:04:11 PM5/31/12
to prot...@googlegroups.com
Status: New
Owner: liuj...@google.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 393 by robn...@gmail.com: Allow configure to disable maintainer
mode
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=393

Currently protobuf does not support disabling automake's maintainer mode.
In maintainer mode, the "configure" script can be rebuilt if it appears to
be older than its dependencies. This is good for maintainers, but plays
havoc for downstream packagers who checkin the contents of the tarball.
Many version control systems do not maintain file dates, so configure can
look stale and may be rebuilt when it should not be. If configure is
readonly (such as when stored under Perforce), the build will fail.

The solution is adding AM_MAINTAINER_MODE([enable]) to configure.ac. This
changes nothing by default, but adds the configure option
--disable-maintainer-mode, which tells configure never to rebuild itself
even if its dates appear incorrect.

Attachments:
protobuf-maintainermode.patch 547 bytes

prot...@googlecode.com

unread,
Jul 3, 2012, 2:00:15 AM7/3/12
to prot...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Status: Accepted

Comment #1 on issue 393 by liuj...@google.com: Allow configure to disable
maintainer mode
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=393

Thanks for the patch.

prot...@googlecode.com

unread,
Jul 3, 2012, 5:40:03 AM7/3/12
to prot...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Labels: FixedIn-2.5.0

Comment #2 on issue 393 by liuj...@google.com: Allow configure to disable
maintainer mode
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=393

fixed in r419, will be included in the 2.5.0 release

prot...@googlecode.com

unread,
Dec 4, 2012, 5:42:23 PM12/4/12
to prot...@googlegroups.com
Updates:
Status: Fixed

Comment #3 on issue 393 by xiaof...@google.com: Allow configure to disable
maintainer mode
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=393

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages