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

Re: automake 1.5

On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 08:21:50PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Consider a package that DOES NOT build-depend on automake.  I don't
> > see automake in the list of "build-essentials".  Is it the case that
> > buildd machines typically have automake available when building a
> > package?  If not, there is no problem; the problem can only arise if a
> > build daemon installs automake even when not asked to do so.
> Or if a human happens to be rebuilding the package on their own machine
> for whatever reason, which I certainly do (with other people's packages)
> from time to time.  Packages should always successfully build from source
> even outside the context of buildd.
You could add a Build-Conflicts line in the control file. I didn't check,
but I bet dpkg-buildpackage reminds you if it detects a Build-Conflicts, as
it "reminds" you of a missing Build-Depends.

But for the sake of woody, I am for going back to automake 1.4 for now. Even
with using all the hints I got here, I couldn't make sdl build with automake
1.5. As Branden wrote, make distclean in the doc subdirectory does not work
If somebody can explain why this is not an automake bug and how to fix it, we
might start fixing all the source packages, but I didn't see a fix yet, so
this is not (yet) an option.

As somebody else wrote, if you have patched .am/.in files, the timestamps 
can force a call of automake, IIRC we had some weird troubles with that on
m68k since the patches took a little longer to apply. It would be pretty bad
if you had to teach the buildds to start applying the patches at the start
of a second, so that they do not call automake, or to touch some files to
prevent that. Not that I know much about the auto* tools, but I'd prefer if
calling them did not screw up the Makefiles, ie the packages should build,
no matter if you call automake or not. Thus we need a working automake, now.


Reply to: