On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 05:05:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes:
> > Nevertheless, with these mass filings where we add en masse the same > > option to many packages, I wonder if we are doing something wrong. > > Don't we use debhelper and CDBS to have reasonable defaults ? Are there > > more packages that fail to build after autoreconf, than packages that > > fail to build without ? > There are certainly more packages that fail to build *on amd64* after > autoreconf than packages that fail to build without. So it depends on > what your priorities are. :) > Personally, I plan to use dh-autoreconf on every package with Autoconf > support that I maintain going forward, and found these bug reports helpful > in pointing out a couple of packages where I failed to do that. In one > case, I added the dependency but never invoked dh_autoreconf in > debian/rules. Whoops. > It's an interesting question whether we should just force dh-autoreconf in > debhelper unless the package maintainer explicitly turns it off. It would > save me work, just as I've now been able to take overrides back out of all > of my packages now that dpkg defaults to xz compression. But it would be > disruptive, and some packages would definitely fail to build afterwards. So arguably, such a behavior change should be tied to a debhelper compat level change. But I think we ought to switch to autoreconfing by default. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
