On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:20:09PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > Also this doesn't fix things for packages using autoconf but not > debhelper (whether via CDBS or not).
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2014/04/msg01249.html Even Manoj, the most stalwart supporter of by-hand rules files, has started adopting dh(1). (Welcome back, Manoj!) It's time for us to stop making excuses for maintainers making things hard for the project by refusing to use our higher-level abstractions. > Ben, are you following this thread? If you don't object violently to > adding Paul's 'update from Debian canonical config.{sub.guess} > locations by default' patch to the Debian autoconf, then that just > leaves my original issue of what ensures that those files are > installed at build time? Can we put it in Build-essential, or do we > have to have every package build-dep on it explicitly (which get us > back to the 'fix every package' issue (although it is a trivial fix > that anyone can get right in this case)). > Some input from the debhelper and CDBS maintainers on whether they > think Russ's approach makes sense would be good. There's no reason for a debhelper subtool to be part of build-essential. It can, however, be straightforwardly rolled into debhelper as a dependency or by being absorbed directly. I don't see any reason not to do this, and intend to put together a patch when I have a few minutes to spare. > > The maintainer will then have to add the dh-autoreconf > > build dependency when they update the debhelper compat level, and then the > > rest of the machinery will be taken care of by the helpers if they're > > used. > What is the right build-dependency for non-debhelper packages? The right build-dependency for non-debhelper packages is 'debhelper'. :P -- 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
