I have often tried to argue my position on automake/autoconf in packages' build dependencies: I do not think they belong there. If a package does not build without automake or autoconf, it is broken and should be fixed. However, bugs like #298336 seem to suggest that other maintainers deem it entirely appropriate to "go the easy way" -- if I may call it that without being condescending towards Uwe. I seem to recall the devel-reference or some similar document to specifically address this issue, but I cannot find the location anymore. Thus I am interested in opinions of people who argue that automake/autoconf are perfectly acceptable as build dependencies. Also, are there technical arguments against these build dependencies? I am too inexperienced with the GNU autotools to come up with something. I am perfectly aware that there are (and should be) exceptions. For instance, if a package should be made available sooner rather than later, and the maintainer then sits down to work on the autotools configuration to fix the bug for the next upload. However, this always bears the danger that the maintainer then loses interest and the archive will contain what I claim to be a broken source package... even though it may well build. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Description: Digital signature