-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 05:33:39PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:49:01PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:30:49PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > The ppc64el port requires a patch to libtool.m4. I don't think that's > > > in Debian yet, but when it is it will require autoreconfing a bunch of > > > packages to pick it up. thunar could handle this quite easily by using > > > dh-autoreconf, which will update its copies of the libtool macros. > > > > Unless we want to autoreconf each and every C package in Debian, > > IMO every package using the autotools should autoreconf itself at build > time, yes. I'm not the only one who thinks this; > /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz has been strongly > recommending it for at least four years. I fixed all my own packages > some time ago, as have a number of other developers.
Then ask it to be included by default in debhelper instead of doing it manually in each package? > > Now, I know better than to advocate for it being a release-critical bug > or whatever until it's somewhat more widespread practice; but this is a > case that autoreconf-at-build-time would have avoided, so it's a good > excuse to introduce it to this package now to save problems next time. Or introduce other ones, I guess. Afaict, that means diverting from the package generated by upstream. If it fixes immediate problems, then fine, but otherwise I prefer leaving it that way. > > > I think we'll wait until that port is actually introduced. Can you > > keep us updated in case we miss it? > > This doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid. dh_autoreconf arranges to > run autoreconf at the start of the build, so there's no reason to wait > for the libtool patches in question to be applied in Debian before you > apply my patch. It is of benefit even without those patches since it > means that anyone who needs to patch your package's build system can do > so simply by patching the true source files, without having to figure > out how to regenerate things appropriately as well. > > The port itself was announced in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2013/09/msg00045.html. Sure, but ping us when it's actually part of Debian? Not that I'm *strongly* against ppc64el per se, I actually don't care, it's just pretty low priority. Regards, - -- Yves-Alexis Perez -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSwgsZAAoJEG3bU/KmdcCltB4H/00O32aUVXDQSTs6bhgqe0pr +LRHWpc8rRopKF3leD5XVlHNgkCa1Z4EHjNGHMSyoE/dvPEbrzawfhwkCSQ6qQV5 d0kNuaaxwQT2Ge4+7mqDSRlmrcNSRPztkzReKmEkas/AijpGjeUtMuOencM8zeCN eWgwoNTsynVrkO9QAhPFXsuBp/ycpSyYsHPlTCreWhePvBePWHoMvjOG5MjI5cED m6AD39OCUBJwuaFA6S9jRaamDe5yC7niOa/qLG+c/7inx1x5w3zLLJ/XS0Ek0YE0 i9+j9QIe+RdFNJxlJP1aSavx6O3t2TOCgCvk4Qcd0FnH2HQSssD600wNXcIqQRg= =aoTI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
