Re: bug in tar 1.14-2.1
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:07 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Finally, I solved it this way:
>
> diff -u tar-1.14/debian/rules tar-1.14/debian/rules
> --- tar-1.14/debian/rules
> +++ tar-1.14/debian/rules
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
> build-stamp:
> dh_testdir
>
> - $(MAKE)
> + RSH="/usr/bin/rsh" CFLAGS="-O2 -g -Wall" $(MAKE)
> (cd tests ; $(MAKE) check-TESTS)
>
> touch build-stamp
It certainly seems to make sense to provide the same environment to make
that we're using for configure, so I'll add this to my CVS for the next
upload to unstable. If that is sufficient to ensure a clean build of a
1.14-2.2 version on all architectures affected by the bug in question, I
have no problem with that change being included for the next stable
update.
However, I don't immediately understand why the auto* tools are being
invoked by make during this build? Reviewing the tar changelog, I made
explicit reference for 1.14-1 that autoconf and automake build
dependencies were elminated. Nothing I changed for 1.14-2 should have
affected that, and it's not obvious that anything in the diff between -2
and -2.1 should have affected that either. However, I left in place the
code in the debian/rules file that updates config.sub and config.guess
in the 'clean' target *if* autotools-dev is installed. So, I wonder if
the underlying problem is that those files are being updated and somehow
triggering this behavior?
Goswin indicates in his reply to this message that we should "touch the
files in the right order", but I'm not sure what that refers to in this
case?
For 1.15.1-4, I re-introduced a dependency on autoconf in response to
#354194. In hindsight, that may not have been the right thing to do...
and even if it was the right thing to do, I'm not sure it was really
sufficient. It would seem desireable to not run the auto* tools on
every build if we don't need to, yet if we're going to then there should
probably be an autotools-dev build dependency, etc?
For whatever reason, I'm having a hard time thinking clearly about this
today, and so advice and/or suggested patches for the version currently
in unstable to do "the right thing" in the future would be appreciated.
Regards,
Bdale
Reply to: