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

Re: Autoconf 2.50

On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:11:39PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 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.

Could you explain why this is wrong?
This is how i proceed on some packages and am very happy with it.

> > 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.

I would agree if this is the position of the QA Team.


Reply to: