Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > Nevertheless, with these mass filings where we add en masse the same > option to many packages, I wonder if we are doing something wrong. > Don't we use debhelper and CDBS to have reasonable defaults ? Are there > more packages that fail to build after autoreconf, than packages that > fail to build without ?
There are certainly more packages that fail to build *on amd64* after autoreconf than packages that fail to build without. So it depends on what your priorities are. :) Personally, I plan to use dh-autoreconf on every package with Autoconf support that I maintain going forward, and found these bug reports helpful in pointing out a couple of packages where I failed to do that. In one case, I added the dependency but never invoked dh_autoreconf in debian/rules. Whoops. It's an interesting question whether we should just force dh-autoreconf in debhelper unless the package maintainer explicitly turns it off. It would save me work, just as I've now been able to take overrides back out of all of my packages now that dpkg defaults to xz compression. But it would be disruptive, and some packages would definitely fail to build afterwards. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4z778yr....@windlord.stanford.edu
