Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:01:29 -0400
> Clint Adams <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:09:59PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> > Until Debian as a whole can agree that it is important to be
>> > self-hosting, and to be confident enough in our autotools maintainers
>> > to trust their packages for automated builds, I don't think you should
>> > ask David to build a whole cross compiler. After all, that's not only
>> > a _lot_ more complex to maintain, but more build-resources-expensive.
>> When normal practice for upstreams is to not ship any auto-generated
>> files, and normal practice for users wishing to compile their own
>> programs is to have autotools installed, then I might agree with you.
> That's down to the gnu automake developers - many upstream teams use
> 'make dist' (sadly some don't use 'make distcheck') and leave it at
> that. If normal practise is to change, it will have to change within
> automake first.
That defeats the purpose of autoconf, and makes much of automake's
functionality redundant. If you are going to require automake, autoconf and
libtool installed, why then generate the intermediate steps (configure and
Makefile's)? Plus it defeats another goal of autotools: only developers
should have it installed, not end users.
If you go down that road, you'll end up with something like scons.