[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, 13 Jun 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 05:39:02PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Then read /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.
> > 
> > Ignorance is not an excuse anymore, go fix the package. Get the
> Those who would call others ignorant should first be not so themselves.

I have no delusions of being God, or of ever becoming one.

Still, now that I am aware of your standing on certain philosophies, I shall
not risk enraging you further with careless comments.  My apologies, I did
not mean to affront you. I worded that sentence carelessly.

I stated[1] that ignorance about the auto* issue would not be an excuse
anymore, because you now would know where to get the info you need.

The fact that such a readme.debian in a package as autotools-dev is needed
is enough proof that [at least I as the autotools-dev maintainer believe
that], not only there is no shame in not knowing the small details on how
convoluted tools such as the auto* bunch work, but also that this is a
common problem.

[1] In an over aggresive way, I admit. That was a botched attempt at
actually getting you to read the autotool's information and act on it, which
apparently failed.

> build scripts.  This is not an accident or an artifact of dpkg-source,
> it's an intentional act performed to comply with Debian's policy, the one

THAT is not what the email I replied to seemed to convey. In that email, you
seemed to imply that one _always_ need to build depend on automake and
autoconf [and all them at build time] when a maintainer needs to edit
configure.in, which is false.

To me, it looks like you still do not know the important details of how the
automake -> autoconf -> make toolchain is supposed to work.  Either that, or
there is something inherently evil to the SDL build structure that requires
you to modify the very *.in files a number of times in debian/rules, maybe
by calling automake numerous times with different options. And then use
autoconf to generate new configure scripts.  That would be a hideous misuse
of these tools and should be fixed upstream.

> I refuse to defy Debian policy because you don't like build-deps on
> autoconf and automake.

I do not dislike, or bother with build-dependencies on autoconf and
automake.  I do frown upon the mess they make when coupled with new version
of said tools, and very old versions of the GNU config scripts. That was the
reason I created autotools-dev.

  "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

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: