Re: [DebianGIS] Re: [GRASSLIST:10072] debian compilation (r.sim.water)
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:48:20AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:50:30AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:31:16AM +0200, alex bodnaru wrote:
> > >
> > > hi friends,
> > >
> > > the missing include files seem to be the output of the source configuration.
> > > running autoconf and ./configure before make should help.
> > > those should run automatically in dpkg-buildpackage in a properly made
> > > package.
> > >
> >
> > Automatically? A proper configured program must have an alredy working configure.
>
> GRASS comes for years with an already working configure.
>
What I said :) Nice to see you are not of the same idea of too many
people among autotools folks who pretend in-sync chains and auto-reconf
at every building, which is a non-sense IMHO. In a perfect world all
autotools chains shoule be bug-free and back-compatibles. But we are not
in a perfect world, so autoreconf at every build is a nice way to look for
problems.
> > That's no need of re-autoconf (even considering that there is not a sane script
> > in 2.13). I would add that grass uses 2.13 which is a crap.
> > Many modern distributions has nothing but 2.54+ which can be tipically not
> > compatible with the provided configure.in. I would add that I have
> > absolutely no problem in building up our package, so error is elsewhere.
>
> Right. Interestingly I am not aware of any other report and people
> are using it on various Linux distros, MacOSX, mingW32 etc.
> So I still suspect a local problem.
>
Just because none autoreconf from scratch, I think. Debian has autoconf2.13 just
in case, but I'm not sure about others.
> Naive question: Why don't we simply receive the DH_VERBOSE=1 output
> instead of guessing what could be wrong? Please don't post often, but
> preferably *complete* bug reports.
>
I alreay asked Paolo to build-up a pbuilder env, which is not so
complicated at all...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: