* Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen@err.no) wrote: > * Eric Dorland > > [Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below] > > | I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always > | a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is > | generally a bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf > | on the unpacked source and ship it in the .diff.gz. An extra 2K > | won't hurt. > > You can argue this for a lot of files. An example is texinfo files > which get their headers updated with information in the language of > the build locale. Or why should docs be built as part of the build > process at all? Or X fonts? > > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible > to change any part of the program and barring real errors, it should > still build. That upstream writes crap configure.in/.ac and > Makefile.ams is not an excuse, it's just a bug which should be fixed. Well I don't disagree. But either we test every auto* using package this way, or we don't. The auto* tools are designed specifically so that they are not build dependencies. So making it a build dependency seems like a kludge. Now if we wanted to make it a general policy to test whether auto* regeneration works then I have less problem with that, but it would be a lot more work, for very little benefit that I can see. -- Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature