On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Jon Dowland wrote:
> I am considering uploading a DELAYED 7 NMU for this bug
> tonight or tomorrow. HMH, if you have plans to review the
> patch please let us know roughly when you might manage this
> and I will not upload the NMU.
Well, I have some problems with the patch.
I am not a groupie of the school of undue complexity so that we can revert
our build trees to whatever shit came from upstream. A debian source
package exists to build debian binary packages. I consider the entire
"revert" stuff useless complexity.
The second one, is that it does too little. It doesn't help the configure
call with proper parameters, it doesn't help setting up debian/control
dependencies, it doesn't handle updating the autotools stuff (GNU config !=
autotools, although autotools needs it). It just freshes up
config.sub/config.guess -- so the dh_autotools name is incorrect.
This is easy to fix. Rename it to dh_update_gnu_config or something shorter
but to that effect.
However, do we _really_ need a wrapper to do something that boils down to:
rm -f config.{sub,guess}
in the clean target, and
ln -sf /usr/share/misc/config.{sub,guess} .
in the target that will call configure, plus a build-dependency on
autotools-dev ?
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
