On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:45:41PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:40:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > There's no substitute for rebuilding from source. :) I used to be a bit > > skeptical of that push for Autoconf and friends, but the more I've worked > > with it, the more I've come around to the position that we should treat > > the configure script the same way that we would treat *.o files in the > > upstream source. > > If we go that route, that would mean removing configure and friends > from .orig.tar.gz. > > Otherwise, we would be telling our users that the tarball is the > source when that would not be completely true. Moreover, I wonder if > we can really say that binary matches source when we modify the source > at build time. > > I would rather autoreconf at dpkg-buildpackage time in such a way that > you get an updated Debian source every time you make a new Debian > release for such package (something like debian/patches/auroreconf.diff). > Autobuilders should not need to autoreconf the same package over and > over again.
This way, you need a rebuild for (playing with) new architectures. Running it at build-time ensures that we can add new architectures with less work, and it results in cleaner packages, as others have pointed out. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Please do not top-post if possible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140422200455.GA15264@jak-x230
