Re: automake/autoconf/libtool -- convince me
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 11:26, Joey Hess wrote:
> Colin Walters wrote:
> > I very much disagree with "short hop". If they need to be hacking the
> > configure.ac, they'll probably need to be hacking other things too in
> > the upstream source, and who knows what other kinds of tools they'll
> > need, like docbook, gob, etc.
>
> Dmitry's mutt example is a fine example. Just applying a third-party
> patch breaks because of nasty hacks.
Sure, but applying patches isn't always going to just work even if you
add the Build-Depends on the autotools. If this patch is really popular
than maybe Marco could put it in the package and make sure it works, but
only have it be applied if some variable is set in debian/rules or
something.
> I don't understand your comments about docbook and gob, because of course,
> if my upstream source has xml docs, I will already be build-depending on
> whatever is needed to build them. Same with generated GUI stuff although I
> don't have any of that.
Yeah, bad examples. glade is probably a better example.
Reply to: