Follow-up Comment #7, sr #111238 (group autoconf): Re comment #6:
>> 1) ... But then the distros say "we don't trust upstream tarballs any more, >> because of the xz backdoor drama", and regenerate everything with their own >> versions of autoconf, automake, ... > > Please do not tar and feather us all with the same brush! This is > unreasonable and *insulting*. I apologize for saying "the distros". I meant to state what I observed several important distros are doing. If you are working on a distro that generally respects upstream tarballs, the "tension" that I was describing does not exist between package maintainers and your distro. >> 2) ... They run autoreconf anyway. > We don't care if the "correct" command is autoreconf or autogen.sh Glad to hear that your distro is so pragmatic. I was relating my experience with at least one major distro. Sorry for the over-generalization. > I've submitted patches to autoreconf to solve the case where commonly used > tools such as the GLib ecosystem ones aren't invoked by autoreconf, and an > autogen.sh was the only thing that worked. Now autoreconf works too! Your patches regarding gtkdocize and intltoolize surely made the job of distributors easier. > I suppose that Zack has the option of pushing back against false > information... I still claim that this tension exists, between specific distros and upstream. Specifically Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf Specifically openSUSE: https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/packag...@lists.opensuse.org/thread/EKZEATM4VBI7XDOWFINYCNRNPI3BRD6G/ _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?111238> _______________________________________________ Nachricht gesendet über Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
