Am 16.04.2014 23:20, schrieb Markus Wanner:
> On 04/16/2014 10:32 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> sure, but I never did speak about amd64 and ppc64, and I didn't speak about
>> dh_autotools but about dh_autoreconf.
>
> Your initial bug report claims that "the config.{guess,sub} files are
> out of date" - which is not the case - and that the package should
> build-depend on autotools-dev, which it already does.
>
> This tricked me into overlooking the autotools vs autoreconf difference,
> sorry.
>
>> as I did write in the bug report. The libtool.m4 is outdated. The libtool
>> package in Debian has a fixed one, and you need to call dh_autoreconf to
>> update it.
>
> Understood.
>
> Given #698765, the fact that I see AC_CANONICAL_ in configure.ac and a
> difference between config.sub and config.sub.dh-orig, I think I need to
> keep the calls to dh_autotools, right? Does the attached patch look okay?
- please check if dh-autoreconf updates the config.* files.
The dh_autotools-dev calls are only necessary when dh_autoreconf
can't find all config.* files.
- if you need to keep it, then revert the order of the
calls in the clean target.
- Build dependencies are missing, dh-autoreconf, and I assume
autoconf2.13.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
