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

Re: mass-filing bug reports to use dh-autoreconf during the build

* Matthias Klose (doko@debian.org) wrote:
> Last year, I started to file bug reports for the arm64 port, which required new
> versions of the config.sub and config.guess scripts.  All of these can be fixed
> by using the autotools-dev package for the update.  Now, another port requires
> not just updates to the config.* scripts, but an update to libtool.m4  and then
> regenerating the configure file (see #726404).  I would like to file bug reports
> for these and user-tag them, proposing as user / usertags
>   User: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>   Usertags: autoreconf
> For packages using recent versions of autoconf and automake, the patches are
> simple, calling dh_autoreconf in the rules file and adding a b-d on
> dh-autoreconf.  Packages using older autotools versions may need setting of
> environment vars to call the appropriate old autotools scripts.  Other packages
> need additional b-d's to pick up .m4 files for the regeneration of the configure
> scripts.  There may be small number of packages where the files needed to
> regenerate the configure scripts are not in the archive (gutenprint might be
> such an example)
> I expect that some hundred bug reports would be filed for this.

I've already seen several bugs filed against my packages that look
like this filed by Logan Rosen. Have these already been filed?

Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: