Re: Chicken/egg problem building from a 'git clone'

["Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>]

On 2009.03.01 09:56:46 -0600, Joi Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> > 
> > > Now, in this case, it was only one tweak and other responders have
> > > already pointed him in the right direction. So just making that tweak
> > > manually is probably the sane thing to do in this situation.
> > >
> > > But I wanted to point out that autoconf is not totally without value
> > > here.
> > 
> > I am not saying something that strong, either.  If autoconf generated
> > configure works _for you_ without hassle, great.  Keep using it.
> > 
> > The original message that started this thread was what to do when it does
> > NOT work for you, and my point was in general it is much nicer to point at
> > the knob to tweak from the make invocation command line (or in config.mak)
> > than having you spend time on upgrade autoconf, generate configure and run
> > it.
> 
> Actually, guys, if you go back and re-read my original message, I was
> pointing out that if you use a 'git clone' to get a build tree, THERE IS
> NO CONFIGURE SCRIPT in the tree.

And Junio was talking about the Makefile not working for you. And btw,
if you want a real chicken/egg problem, go complaining to the autoconf
folks that the autoconf git repository has no configure script either.
And autoconf actually requires autoconf for bootstrapping AFAICT, while
git does not. I'm sure they'll be happy to explain to you why having a
generated configure script in the repo is not a good idea.

Björn