Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think we should recommend (but not require) that AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
> > not be used, and perhaps work to specify an optional debian/rules target
> > that regenerates the build system in an appropriate way. That seems to
> > provide the necessary benefits for users who need to change these files
> > without imposing an unacceptable burden on developers. I don't think
> > there's a good cause to go much further than that at this point.
> I think this would in some respects be the worst of both worlds. The
> problem with not using AM_MAINTAINER_MODE is that the autotools *may* be
> run but generally aren't. This means that build dependencies only needed
> when one modifies those files aren't present or aren't tested. Modifying
> one of those files can suddenly spark the discovery that upstream isn't
> compatible with the current autotools, the partial run of Automake can
> leave the whole tree in a broken state, and so forth.
>
> But I suppose that's basically the normal argument for AM_MAINTAINER_MODE.
Yes, I second Russ here and would like to add that it's very easy to
trigger the timestamp skews if you simply create a patch for
configure + configure.in/.ac as the files will be sorted as configure
first and then configure.in/.ac so that applying the patch causes
configure.in/.ac to be newer than configure...
Also, automake/autoconf/aclocal might be triggerred while e.g. some m4
macros aren't installed on the buildd or the developer's system. Of
course these are usually shipped with the upstream tarballs, but are
often missing/incomplete.
--
Loïc Minier
Reply to: