On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > The build script determines the outcome of what will effectively run on > our users' machine. I fail to see how this is not an important > issue. But until the effort to get ppc64el, not regenerating the > configure script was just a fine option and not considered as DFSG > violation (all bugs were filed with normal severity). And this existed > for as long as Debian existed!
That we assume that these configure scripts can be regenerated instead of actually testing that on every build doesn't mean that configure scripts that can't be regenerated on Debian isn't be a serious bug. In the long term we probably should talk to autotools upstream about making it more clear what files are embedded code copies and what files are generated, so that we can be sure which files to remove when we want to check that we can regenerate the relevant files. > However, this is a readable source code that will accomodate any > modification that a end user will deem necessary. This is far more > readable than the output of autoconf (again). For me, there is no strong > problem with DFSG #2 by just using this file as the source code. That isn't the commonly accepted definition of what "source code" is AFAIK. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
