Re: About a mass bug report not based on Sid or Jessie.
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> Nevertheless, with these mass filings where we add en masse the same
> option to many packages, I wonder if we are doing something wrong.
> Don't we use debhelper and CDBS to have reasonable defaults ? Are there
> more packages that fail to build after autoreconf, than packages that
> fail to build without ?
There are certainly more packages that fail to build *on amd64* after
autoreconf than packages that fail to build without. So it depends on
what your priorities are. :)
Personally, I plan to use dh-autoreconf on every package with Autoconf
support that I maintain going forward, and found these bug reports helpful
in pointing out a couple of packages where I failed to do that. In one
case, I added the dependency but never invoked dh_autoreconf in
debian/rules. Whoops.
It's an interesting question whether we should just force dh-autoreconf in
debhelper unless the package maintainer explicitly turns it off. It would
save me work, just as I've now been able to take overrides back out of all
of my packages now that dpkg defaults to xz compression. But it would be
disruptive, and some packages would definitely fail to build afterwards.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: