On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:03:24PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > No, I don't want to force a version, I want the package to force it. > > By forcing a version I mean doing so in the package. > Then I still don't understand your statement above. What is the thing > that you prefer to check outside the normal build process? That we can regenerate the autotools products. > not wasted though. So I have a question: > Does everyone agree that it would in theory be better to run autotools > during the build process? In other words, if you don't have to do > anything to your packages for it, would you have a problem with this? If I didn't have to do anything - but the maintainer is at least going to have to upload changes to run autotools. > Build-depending on versioned automake doesn't look really nice, though. > This is how it currently should be done, AFAIK, but it might be better > to recommend against it. However, in that case great care must be taken > when increasing its version, similar to increasing the default gcc > version. Of course, doing this introduces all the work that was causing people to raise concerns about this... > Of course this is a separate point. IMO clean should remove any file > which was changed during the build. And secondly, I think build should > regenerate everything it can. Combined, these can be formulated as > "clean should remove all non-source files", because every shipped > non-source file must be updated (and thus changed) by the build. Right, half the thing for me is that I don't see this as being something that we need to check on each and every single build. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
