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

Re: Linda warnings

* Robert Collins (robertc@robertcollins.net) wrote:
> 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.

Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools. 
> We and the buildds do *not count* as end users - we are patching the
> code in most cases.

But most packages aren't patching configure.in's and
Makefile.am's. And the buildd is not patching the code, the maintainer

> So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> relevant auto* be installed.

Or you put the patch in the .diff.gz. I think that's the best option. 

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: