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

Re: automatic autoconf config file updating



Quoting Wookey (2014-04-17 16:20:09)
> +++ Russ Allbery [2014-04-16 11:42 -0700]:
>> What I'd therefore lean towards is for debhelper and CDBS (with a new 
>> compat level) to automatically run dh-autoreconf if Autoconf was 
>> detected but without depending on them, resulting in an immediate 
>> FTBFS on all platforms if the package doesn't Build-Depend on 
>> dh-autoreconf but no change for packages that use some other build 
>> system (like our innumerable Perl modules).
>
> Does CDBS have 'compat levels'?

No, not in similar sense as debhelper.

(there's an ABI but that has so far never been bumped).


> Maybe it doesn't matter as the debhelper one will show through in this 
> case?

Not sure what you mean here.

CDBS could simply have the autotools.mk snippet opportunistically 
include autoreconf.mk (i.e. with "-include").  Lintian could then check 
for "build-depends on cdbs and includes autotools.mk but does not 
build-depend on dh-autoreconf" with as high a severity as we want to 
pressure maintainers.

If we decide dh-autoreconf is the way forward, that is.

Personally I would then silence the lintian warning, because...

 a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files  which breaks my
    workflow where disappearing files are treated as an error.
 b) I prefer stripping automade files from source tarball, to avoid the 
    (IMO required) hassle of both verifying that we also ship proper 
    sources for them, and track copyright/licensing for them.


> Also this doesn't fix things for packages using autoconf but not 
> debhelper (whether via CDBS or not). I guess those can/should only be 
> fixed by explicit changes to the rules file (to run dh_autoreconf) or 
> an autoconf patch which would update the config files by default.

Perhaps lintian could here check for "depends on autotools but none of 
debhelper, cdbs or dh-autotools".


> Some input from the debhelper and CDBS maintainers on whether they 
> think Russ's approach makes sense would be good.

I like this general idea but not the actual dh-autoreconf tool, but have 
no alternative proposal so can live with that if others find it cool.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: