* Robert Collins (robertc@robertcollins.net) wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen@err.no) wrote: > > > > > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible > > > to change any part of the program and barring real errors, it should > > > still build. That upstream writes crap configure.in/.ac and > > > Makefile.ams is not an excuse, it's just a bug which should be fixed. > > > > Well I don't disagree. But either we test every auto* using package > > this way, or we don't. The auto* tools are designed specifically so > > that they are not build dependencies. So making it a build dependency > > seems like a kludge. Now if we wanted to make it a general policy to > > test whether auto* regeneration works then I have less problem with > > that, but it would be a lot more work, for very little benefit that I > > can see. > > The auto* tools are only /not/ a build dependency when one does not > change the code. They are explicitly a build dependency for developers. Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools. > We and the buildds do *not count* as end users - we are patching the > code in most cases. But most packages aren't patching configure.in's and Makefile.am's. And the buildd is not patching the code, the maintainer is. > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the > relevant auto* be installed. Or you put the patch in the .diff.gz. I think that's the best option. -- Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature