On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Kilian Krause <kil...@debian.org> wrote:
> That exactly was my idea too. To ship a source that is known and can be > predicted regarding changes. If a security upload would be required but > autoconf generates a broken configure due to some circumstances that > couldn't be predicted at time the package was uploaded to unstable this > is bad and will cause more time to be spent than what would actually be > required for *only* fixing the bug. Which is why we should rebuild from source as often as possible to catch those issues. > In other words I did say: generate whatever dh-autoconf would get you > dynamically, test it, put it together as a patch and ship that patch > statically for everyone to read what exactly the change is instead of > hushing it up inside a large set of deep magic (that in my experience > may or may not work based on "random" circumstances - depending on the > upstream sources). That sounds like something that goes against the spirit of our social contract, specifically "We will not hide problems". By shipping a pre-built build system you are papering over any autotools bugs; those should be known and fixed instead. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HKmzZtpOv8TLvvY+EQh0L8=krk_6nakmocaqnqtuy...@mail.gmail.com
