Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:01:29 -0400, Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> 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
> 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.
> Until then, I think that treating .ac files as if they're .c files is
> a canard.
I don't think canard means what you think it mean: all my
packages treat .ac files exactly like they treat .c files; and this
factual statement blows “canard” out of the water.
I have not had any issues with regenerating all autoconf files
during ./debian/rules configure phase. Do people have examples of
packages where this currently fails?
"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." Mark
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C