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

Re: Linda warnings

* 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

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+ 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: