Am Mittwoch, den 10.02.2010, 12:43 -0800 schrieb Ben Pfaff:
> I'm a little concerned about maintaining a new set of scripts
> that I don't use myself, so I would probably have to put in a bit
> of time to convert my doschk or fmtools packages to use these
> scripts too.
I believe the scripts will be widely used within a short time frame and
they are just a few lines of perl, so I think you won't stand alone with
their maintenance anytime. ;)
> I'm not sure whether these should go into the "autoconf" binary
> package or a separate binary package. I see both practices in
> the archive.
Maybe it would make sense to introduce an additional package
"dh-autoreconf" that depends on autoconf, automake and (at least
recommends) libtool; without these the autoreconf script IMHO doesn't
make much sense anyway. This package doesn't need to be necesarrily
maintained by you alone, though.
However, I am still thinking about shipping both sets of scripts, the
ones (i.e. mine) that simply update and restore config.{guess,sub}
(because that's really sufficient in some cases) and the other ones
(i.e. Julian's) that do the whole autoreconf.
@Joey: Would it be possible to make the scripts "depend" on each other?
If not, they could still "remove_command" each other in the dh sequence
file to not do duplicate work, just as in the python_central vs.
python-support case. Or?
@Henrique: If I renamed my initial scripts to dh_config-scripts_update
and dh_config-scripts_restore and renamed the dh sequence addon to
config-scripts.pm, would you then accept them in autotools-dev? The
actual names are still subject to discussion of course. ;)
Cheers,
Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
