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

Re: The automake issue, and why crippling 1.6 is a bad plan

On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 22:55, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:16:30PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The configure.in shipped with SDL upstream causes lintian errors about
> > > things which have been a violation of policy at least as far back as I can
> > > remember.  My package fixes this in configure.in and then regenerates the
> > > build scripts.
> > 
> > You said the magic word.
> > 
> > They are _scripts_. That means you can put them in the diff, and generate
> > them while building your _source_ package. No need to build
> > configure-scripts as part of building your binary package.
> Do you want to maintain the list in my debian/rules?  Here is a possibly
> complete list of what would have to be added to (and maintained in) my
> rules binary target in order to ensure that autoconf and automake need not
> be there:
Seeing as you're hacking with configure.in anyway, why not stick an
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE thing in there, might reduce the list a little.

> Want me to not call autothings in my build target?  Fix dpkg so the above
> shit need not litter my rules file.
If you're calling autotools in your package's build target, that is a
BUG.  That is not what autotools is meant for.

Scott James Remnant     Have you ever, ever felt like this?  Had strange
http://netsplit.com/      things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: