On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Tollef Fog Heen (email@example.com) wrote: > > > 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. The auto* tools are only /not/ a build dependency when one does not change the code. They are explicitly a build dependency for developers. We and the buildds do *not count* as end users - we are patching the code in most cases. So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the relevant auto* be installed. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part