Re: Is an autogenerated configure shell script non-editable source (Was: Bug#1025739: hmmer2: missing source for configure)
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:07:30PM +0100, Alexander Sulfrian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:14:40PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I would consider asking upstream about this for sure but the code is in
> > maintenance mode and there is no Git repository to step back in history.
> > The only way to go would be to take configure.ac from a later version
> > and find out how it can be tweaked to create some working configure
> > file from it. I do not consider my time well spent in doing so except
> > if there is some consensus here on the list that configure files without
> > configure.ac are "missing source".
>
> isn't the matching configure.ac available here?
>
> https://github.com/MichiganTech/hmmer/blob/2.3.2/configure.ac
>
> This repository is at least referenced in debian/upstream/metadata and
> the package version seems to match the git tag.
That file may be available online for this particular software. The debate is
about whether such configure.ac file must be included in the distributed
package for making the package dfsg. And more in general, about where to draw
the line on how easily editable (think: time well spent) the included source
code must be for making the package dfsg. In my opinion there is no sharp line,
and ftpmaster is well positioned for making fair choices in a +/- uniform way
for all packages. And there is always be room for questioning those choices and
allowing the meaning of dfsg evolve over time. Back to configure.ac, I'd
support a choice of making a missing configure.ac an 'important' bug, and not
enough for rejecting the package as non-dfsg.
>
>
> Alex
>
Reply to: