On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:22:05AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > The results of that build seem unlikely to ever be seriously tested > > currently, which makes me a little dubious that it's worth making a rule > > about it. > > I would wager that majority of such results would be tested during the > build process. There is no way to test firmware, images, PDFs, etc. > > Or, put another way, I'm not sure that this is substantially > > less controversial than just requiring debian/rules build rebuild > > everything from source. > > That seems unlikely given that there are many many packages using > autotools-based build systems. If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's "disabled" [1], there's no way to check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping sourceless code. Forbidding it would at least deal with patching autotools output rather than source. I don't get why, when everything else has to be built from source, AM_MAINTAINER_MODE gets an exemption. Gnome's stance: http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2011/09/08/am_maintainer_mode-is-not-cool/ GNU's and the inventor of AM_MAINTAINER_MODE's stance: http://www.gnu.org/s/hello/manual/automake/maintainer_002dmode.html [1]. The naming is pretty misleading, it should be called AM_DISABLE_MAINTAINER_MODE. It goes: * without: ok * AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, --disable-maintainer-mode: sourceless code * AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, --enable-maintainer-mode: ok -- 1KB // Yo momma uses IPv4!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature