On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:14:24PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Then I still don't understand your statement above. What is the thing > > that you prefer to check outside the normal build process? > > That we can regenerate the autotools products. I answered this in another reply. Sorry for not merging it with this one. > > Does everyone agree that it would in theory be better to run autotools > > during the build process? In other words, if you don't have to do > > anything to your packages for it, would you have a problem with this? > > If I didn't have to do anything - but the maintainer is at least going > to have to upload changes to run autotools. What I mean is that I make the required changes to the packages and send patches to everyone. All the maintainers need to do then is apply the patch (and maintain the result, but I'm also happy to help with that). > > Build-depending on versioned automake doesn't look really nice, though. > > This is how it currently should be done, AFAIK, but it might be better > > to recommend against it. However, in that case great care must be taken > > when increasing its version, similar to increasing the default gcc > > version. > > Of course, doing this introduces all the work that was causing people to > raise concerns about this... Yes, and I share those concerns, which is why I didn't recommend this. However, thinking more about it, it really is the Right Thing. And when doing it the same way as we handle gcc, I think it shouldn't be causing too much trouble, even. > > Of course this is a separate point. IMO clean should remove any file > > which was changed during the build. And secondly, I think build should > > regenerate everything it can. Combined, these can be formulated as > > "clean should remove all non-source files", because every shipped > > non-source file must be updated (and thus changed) by the build. > > Right, half the thing for me is that I don't see this as being something > that we need to check on each and every single build. If we build separate infrastructure to test it, it would likely also try to do this for every upload. And preferrably on different (or even all) architectures we support. So if we make this whole extra check work right, it isn't actually costing any less computing time. Assuming that is what you have against doing it on every build, that is... Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature