On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:12:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any > > different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The "configure" > > script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of macros in the > > autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the original macros. > But all the original macros are actually present and shipped with the > source (or are obtained from some version of the Autoconf, Automake, and > Libtool packages), You must mean "all the original macros should be actually present" because it is not always true, as you seem to imply below. > and I think that failure to regenerate the configure > machinery with current Autotools would constitute a bug. The difference > with waf is that the sources aren't included and aren't easily obtainable > via another package in Debian one can build-depend on. > > I'm converting all of my packages to use dh-autoreconf so that I can > detect such bugs. > -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature