Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Autoconf is pretty stable,
>
> This has not been the experience of many of us. I haven't had a lot of
> trouble fixing things for newer releases of Autoconf, but I definitely
> have seen issues. And the Autoco
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > Not at all. If it's optional, it's likely that many packages will not
> > > have it. Also, if the build system doesn't use it by default, it is
> > > likely that many of those targets are never tested and don't actually
> > > work.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:59PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> > The fact that there exist packages which work properly without
> > recompiling from source doesn't mean it's a good default. IMO the
> > default should be to always comp
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> The fact that there exist packages which work properly without
> recompiling from source doesn't mean it's a good default. IMO the
> default should be to always compile from source. Yes, that means hassle
> for the packager; it's pret
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:24:43PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Yes, I second Russ here and would like to add that it's very easy to
> trigger the timestamp skews if you simply create a patch for
> configure + configure.in/.ac as the files will be sorted as configure
> first and then configure.i
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think we should recommend (but not require) that AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
> > not be used, and perhaps work to specify an optional debian/rules target
> > that regenerates the build system in an appropriate way. That seems to
> > provide the necessary benef
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:15:20AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Autoconf is pretty stable,
>
> This has not been the experience of many of us. I haven't had a lot of
> trouble fixing things for newer releases of Autoconf, but I definitely
> have seen
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Autoconf is pretty stable,
This has not been the experience of many of us. I haven't had a lot of
trouble fixing things for newer releases of Autoconf, but I definitely
have seen issues. And the Autoconf 2.13 to 2.50 transition and all the
subsequent ins
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:07:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > This is not true if you simply build the whole package from source.
> > That is, run autotools during build, remove all generated files,
> > including Makefile.in, configu
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rather than incurring the pain of gratuitous full regeneration every
> time, we just regenerate it when the user has changed something. Yes,
> the user now gets to resolve any problems that might have been
> pre-existing, but realistically either the Debi
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> This is not true if you simply build the whole package from source.
> That is, run autotools during build, remove all generated files,
> including Makefile.in, configure, etc, in the clean target.
>
> For some reason many people seem to
11 matches
Mail list logo
