Hello, Christian T. Steigies <c...@debian.org> (25/02/2010): > Thanks for the report. This is the first time I hear about > autoreconf, so should I replace aclocal && autoconf by autoreconf or > do you recommend to run it outside the build process?
there are drawbacks in both cases (which you identified already), it's
up to you to decide. :)
> In the first case, the debian diff will be small, but there will be
> some files left after the build, so it can not be cleanly built two
> times in a row, unless I undo all those changes in the clean
> target.
rm-ing some extra files shouldn't cost too much. The diff could get
cluttered after the first build indeed, but failures should be easy to
get rid of. (Assuming the upstream tarball isn't autotoolized at all;
if it's already, files should only be updated, not created, anyway.)
> Or does cdbs take care of that automatically?
cdbs can restore some files automatically, like config.{guess,sub},
but I don't think it deals with all other files.
> In the second case, the diff will be large, and it should be run
> manually before every upload?
Indeed, maintaining such a patch is usually a PITA. Especially if you
try and manage it through a quilt patch since you'd have to “quilt
add” all files in advance. Been there, done that… :(
FWIW, my personal choice would be running autoreconf at build time.
Less work for the maintainer, and usually more reliable (applying a
patch against autofoo files might lead to timestamp issues, and
autofoo trying to run some commands at build time while you don't
necessarily Build-Depend on them); that's what is done in (most if
not) all packages maintained by pkg-xorg, and that works fine.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
