[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, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:13:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > 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.

No, just when the alternative to doing so is even messier than using
autothings.  I think I've got a reasonably clean solution for the new SDL
packages which use DBS.  If it works like it's supposed to, I'll use it,
but I'm not at all interested in a very messy way to create more work for
msyelf, just to avoid a build dependency on a package which is probably
just as essential on a developer's machine as debhelper.


> 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.

They're (thankfully) not that bad, even in the woody package.  I know how
these tools are supposed to work, and how once they're set up you should
never need them again unless you're playing with the Makefile.am's or
configure.in.  I also understand that a Debian package does not
necessarily have to do this, but also that the price of not doing so is
that you have huge diffs, a maintenance nightmare, and possibly some other
annoying "feature" which can be more easily fixed by doing it all at
compile time and cleaning up after the compile.  (The woody SDL packages
don't clean up because the old packages 1.2.2 packages didn't, my current
ones do however..)


> > 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.

And I agreed with the package when you announced it.  I also am probably
one of the last people likely to be plauged with a FTBFS bug about using
old versions of the autothings because I _do_ write my scripts to work
with both the oldest and newest versions I can, and fix them if they
break, with a patch upstream.

I've even backported a few automake 1.5+ scripts to work with 1.4,
actually.  This is sometimes not trivial, but it is worthwhile.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>          You want fries with that?
 
<raptor> Adamel, i think the code you fixed of mine didn't work
<raptor> i must not have commited the working code
<Knghtbrd> raptor: like it's the first time THAT has ever happened  =p

Attachment: pgptaDkgMK0BV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: