On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 06:31:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:14:25AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I vote for "break libtool in a Debian-specific way". This is what
> > Debian patches are for, honestly. Breaking Debian packages is not really
> > a workable solution, for what I would hope should be obvious reasons.
>
> There are other situations as well - Exim parses the uname output and uses
> that to determine which makefile to use. If it finds NetBSD, it assumes
> that make is BSD rather than GNU. Fixing this as a Debian specific patch
> would work, but it'd be nice to be able to get it accepted by upstream as
> well. As far as possible, I think people ought to be able to download and
> build packages from upstream source which work, even if the precise
> functionality is different.
>
> > Agreed, it would be easier. I'm pondering whether this should also just be
> > maintained in a Debian-specific patch against autotools-dev (at least, I
> > think that's where config.{sub,guess} are supposed to come from, right?)
>
> Keeping it as a Debian specific patch is easy enough, but it would be nice
> if we could get it included upstream. I can't see how it could break
> anything else.
I'm all for sending patches upstream where it won't break stuff. Sadly,
this is not always an option :/ (Though I try very hard to make sure it
is, when patching things for NetBSD; the X11 patches, for example, should
be able to be sent upstream without causing failures on 'origional flavor'
NetBSD).
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
