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

Re: Architecture independent binaries and building from source

sean finney <seanius@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 08:58:37AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
>> As a rule, we don't regenerate all files from source. We don't
>> generally, for example, regenerate configure (using autoconf) from
> first, the configure script is not a binary file, the bytecode you
> discuss is.  second, while it can be generated from the configure.ac,
> it's questionable whether or not the configure.ac is the
> "preferred form" for modification.
>> configure.ac even though it is possible. No one can sensibly suggest
>> that a shell script of twenty thousand lines is in source form. I
> i've yet to see a configure script that's 20000 lines long,

$ cd gimp-print/current
$ wc -l configure configure.ac
  32261 configure
    960 configure.ac

configure.ac is most definitely my preferred form of modification!!
Even though both are plain text, configure is clearly generated from
configure.ac through m4 macro expansion (including a bunch of custom
macros).  I certainly wouldn't normally accept a patch that changed
configure, since it would almost certainly be useless.

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:13:56AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
>> The text is clear that both the source code and the binary are
>> required. I have included both in the package.
> but there's no guarantee that the source code can successfully build
> the binaries included if it wasn't used to build the binaries included
> in the first place.

Agreed.  There's also no absolute guarantee that the compiled binaries
match the distributed source; perhaps they are outdated or required
some additional tools to build?


Roger Leigh

                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.

Reply to: