[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Autoconf 2.50



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: pgpvRUDki6kUi.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: