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

Re: Linda warnings

On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen@err.no) 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.


GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: