On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > I have some packages which use autotools. I thought it would be good to > compile as much as possible, so it is clear all the sources are correct. That > means including autoconf, of course. > However, linda doesn't agree with that: > W: gfpoken; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. > This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost > never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on > the source tree before the source package is built. > lintian doesn't consider this to be a problem. > My question is: is linda correct and should I not run autoconf from > rules.make? Extrapolating that would mean that compilation is not needed at > all, if a precompiled version of the program is packaged in the source > tarball. That doesn't seem right to me. So if linda is right, then where is > the limit? Generated files which are included for portability reasons (such as > configure) are ok, but others are not? The limit is between autogenerated sources that upstream ships in the tarball, and autogenerated sources that are expected to be built at build time. If you rerun autoconf/automake/libtool at package build-time, when you don't need to, what you get are large diffs against upstream every time a new version of the autotools becomes available. Aside from wasting (a little) space in the archive, that makes it harder for NMUers or passing developers to see what's going on in your package. The autotools-dev README.Debian is a good guide to these issues. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature