(Sorry for my slow reaction, RL was quite busy lately.) Thank you all for your comments. A few notes: On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:29:12AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: [1] > Why didn't you use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE? Because I believe one should change as little as possible. Enabling it requires me to re-run automake/autoconf, with possibly unexpected results. I know some believe it's better to _do_ run automake/autoconf on build-time, but at present which one is better is highly debated over and over again, and it is not in policy. See also my other message about this in [2]. The compromise-solution (running autotools by maintainer) has the, imho severe, disadvantage of not in any standard way documenting which autotools versions to use. Maybe it's a good idea to determine which of the three possibilities Debian as a projects wants (or wether it remains to be up to the Maintainer), and put that in policy? I'll put it on my TODO and get back at this once sarge is released, if I then still feel this needs to get adressed. On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:58:19AM +0000, Magos?nyi ?rp?d wrote: [3] > A levelez?m azt hiszi, hogy Jeroen van Wolffelaar a k?vetkez?eket ?rta: > > It happens that the generated files _are part of the source_. The > > only > Well, let's see the definition of source. > From the GPL: > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it." > The term "the preferred" and engineering practices imply that > there is _one_ source, and anything which is generated from it > is not source. I stand corrected, I (now) agree that, at least in GPL'd works, generated configure's and such are not part of the source as the GPL intends. But, in how far should the tools to generate those files be GPL too? I tend to believe all tools should be GPL; _and_ available the same way as the package itself. In that case, GPL mandates that somehow you should be able to regenerate the generated files by yourself using GPL'd tools. However there is the practical problem of knowing the exact right versions etc (analog to needing exact same gcc and other tools to create byte-for-byte the same binary as was generated upstream). Indeed mandating regeneration of everything at build time makes sure the DD researches the correct versions and such, which one might consider a good thing. On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 07:37:14AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [4] > Swapping them around in the diff is not realy an option. Next time you > build the package you probably forget to swap them around. Instead > touch the files in the right order in the rules file, as explained in > the docs. I have choosen this option (which is also documented as a possible solution in /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz). On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:10:59PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: [5] > I'm not surprised you missed it; after all, it's documented almost > everywhere I'd think of looking, mentioned on this mailing list at least > once a week because someone encounters the same problem and the > resolution of dozens of bug reports. Thanks for politely pointing this out :), the only reason I started this thread is because I found it noteworthy that 2.6 kernels will guarantee to hit you when you've got a timestamp-fuckedup diff, while 2.4, wether on m64k or amd-64, will not reliably fail on you. Please do note that my original post[6] did not in any way ask help about this problem, since I was already aware of AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, and other possible solutions such as touching or autotools-at-build-time. However I did appreciated possible solutions with their rationales, since it did give me some new insights on this issue, especially about what is considered source. Thank you all for your comments and help, --Jeroen [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01172.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01128.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01191.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01166.html [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01269.html [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg01075.html -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar +31-30-253 4499 Jeroen@A-Eskwadraat.nl http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Attachment:
pgp1MduEx2gJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature