Re: About a mass bug report not based on Sid or Jessie.
Am 19.04.2014 01:03, schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> OK, but again maintainers needs enough info to judge whether there is
>> something important in upstream's autogen.sh or if it's all effectively
>> boilerplate that a straighforward autoreconf will replace.
>
> I think what I'm arguing for is just running both. Run upstream's autogen
> first and then run autoreconf. Maybe that's a bad idea, though. It would
> be if upstream's autogen.sh is working around some bug in autoreconf and
> autoreconf would leave things in a broken state.
Not only this, but assuming you configure to run dh-autoreconf with specific
versions to run automake and aclocal, you run them with different versions in
the end, or you have to patch the autogen.sh file.
> Regardless, though, I will say that the autogen.sh script in libgc looks
> completely pointless to me in Debian and I would ignore it and just run
> autoreconf. The only value it's adding is probing for specific versions
> of the tools and aborting on 1.7 versions, which are irrelevant actions
> for Debian. (It's also running things in the "wrong" order, calling
> libtoolize last, so autoreconf may actually produce more reliable
> results.)
There are scripts doing localization, which fail with dh-autoreconf and succeed
with the autogen.sh script. Can't remember exactly which ones but it was in the
xfce4 stack.
Matthias
Reply to: