On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:08:30PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> If we decide dh-autoreconf is the way forward, that is.
>
> Personally I would then silence the lintian warning, because...
>
> a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files which breaks my
> workflow where disappear
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Why? I've not seen any good arguments as to why they're right here.
It would be pointless. We are never going to have 100% of upstream
tarballs generated by the Debian version of autoconf and so we are
always going to need a mechanism in de
Paul Wise wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Wookey wrote:
>
>> Ben, are you following this thread? If you don't object violently to
>> adding Paul's 'update from Debian canonical config.{sub.guess}
>> locations by default' patch to the Debian autoconf, then that just
>> leaves my original i
Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-04-18 00:32:23)
> Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-04-17 20:22:32)
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>
>>> Personally I would then silence the lintian warning, because...
>>
>>> a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files which breaks
>>> my workflow where disapp
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Wookey wrote:
> Ben, are you following this thread? If you don't object violently to
> adding Paul's 'update from Debian canonical config.{sub.guess}
> locations by default' patch to the Debian autoconf, then that just
> leaves my original issue of what ensures th
Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-04-17 20:22:32)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> Personally I would then silence the lintian warning, because...
>
>> a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files which breaks my
>> workflow where disappearing files are treated as an error.
>> b) I prefer s
* Bas Wijnen , 2014-04-17, 22:11:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:08:30PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files which breaks my
workflow where disappearing files are treated as an error.
AFAIK this is incorrect. It will make backup copies during build,
FTR: I like running autoreconf to make sure actual sources are used, and
to document the build process for users who want to change any source
file, including Makefile.am etc.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:08:30PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Personally I would then silence the lintian warning, because...
> a) I dislike dh-autoreconf: It removes changed files which breaks my
> workflow where disappearing files are treated as an error.
> b) I prefer stripping automade files from source tarball, to avo
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:20:09PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> Also this doesn't fix things for packages using autoconf but not
> debhelper (whether via CDBS or not).
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2014/04/msg01249.html
Even Manoj, the most stalwart supporter of by-hand rules files, has
Quoting Wookey (2014-04-17 16:20:09)
> +++ Russ Allbery [2014-04-16 11:42 -0700]:
>> What I'd therefore lean towards is for debhelper and CDBS (with a new
>> compat level) to automatically run dh-autoreconf if Autoconf was
>> detected but without depending on them, resulting in an immediate
>> F
+++ Wookey [2014-04-17 15:20 +0100]:
> +++ Russ Allbery [2014-04-16 11:42 -0700]:
> > Wookey writes:
> >
> > > So, where in debian should we put responsiblity for updating
> > > config.{sub,guess}?
> >
> > I lean towards being more aggressive than this and running autoreconf or
> > the moral eq
+++ Russ Allbery [2014-04-16 11:42 -0700]:
> Wookey writes:
>
> > So, where in debian should we put responsiblity for updating
> > config.{sub,guess}?
>
> I lean towards being more aggressive than this and running autoreconf or
> the moral equivalent on any package using Autoconf, by default.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wookey writes:
>
>> So, where in debian should we put responsiblity for updating
>> config.{sub,guess}?
>
> I lean towards being more aggressive than this and running autoreconf or
> the moral equivalent on any package using Autoconf, by defaul
Wookey writes:
> So, where in debian should we put responsiblity for updating
> config.{sub,guess}?
I lean towards being more aggressive than this and running autoreconf or
the moral equivalent on any package using Autoconf, by default. For that
idea, I offer the following defense:
* Just upd
+++ Paul Wise [2014-04-16 19:51 +0800]:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > What some people here try to do, update config.guess and related files,
> > is, IMHO, just a hack. Sure, it will just work, but only for us (Debian).
> > Other distributors will still have the sam
16 matches
Mail list logo
