On Thu, 24 May 2001, Denis Barbier wrote: > The only real problems are with beta packages taken from CVS, > i would suggest to run autoconf 2.13 on those sources and ship > generated files along with sources until upstream author considers > putting those files under CVS too, which is IMO the best solution. Putting autoconf-, aclocal-, autoheader-, and automake- generated files in CVS is a bad idea. Actually, even libtool- and gettext-generated files should not be kept in CVS. You should regenerate them all in a autogen.sh script on CVS export. (if anyone needs any help to create an autogen.sh script, feel free to ask me. I had to do it recently). > This problem only demonstrates that many Debian packages are beta > software, which is a bad thing, and i strongly disagree with your If using beta software is a bad thing, why is silently breaking a lot of packages not? Cannot build from source is considered bad enough a problem that we remove packages from release, if they're not fixed... and as I said before, one will need to test-build all packages to find all those that break. Anything else is not acceptable from a QA standpoint. > suggestion. An easy solution is as i said to ship files generated by > autoconf 2.13 and drop this Build-Depends dependency. This will also > ease compiling sources on any distribution (stable/testing/unstable). True, but again we'd need to test-build all autoconf-using packages to track down those that try to rebuild their configure.in scripts due to timestamp skew. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Attachment:
pgpfdAEAoc1Bg.pgp
Description: PGP signature