Re: About a mass bug report not based on Sid or Jessie.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:45:41PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:40:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There's no substitute for rebuilding from source. :) I used to be a bit
> > skeptical of that push for Autoconf and friends, but the more I've worked
> > with it, the more I've come around to the position that we should treat
> > the configure script the same way that we would treat *.o files in the
> > upstream source.
>
> If we go that route, that would mean removing configure and friends
> from .orig.tar.gz.
>
> Otherwise, we would be telling our users that the tarball is the
> source when that would not be completely true. Moreover, I wonder if
> we can really say that binary matches source when we modify the source
> at build time.
>
> I would rather autoreconf at dpkg-buildpackage time in such a way that
> you get an updated Debian source every time you make a new Debian
> release for such package (something like debian/patches/auroreconf.diff).
> Autobuilders should not need to autoreconf the same package over and
> over again.
This way, you need a rebuild for (playing with) new architectures.
Running it at build-time ensures that we can add new architectures
with less work, and it results in cleaner packages, as others have
pointed out.
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Please do not top-post if possible.
Reply to: