On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:52:41 +0200 Markus Koschany <a...@debian.org> wrote: > [..] The configure file is human readable and the preferred > source of modification in this case. Please also note that the author of > glee licensed his work under the more liberal BSD-2-clause license. You > cannot compare two very distinct issues like minified JS files and > automake files and claim consensus has been reached already. >
With respect, can you point to any concrete evidence of this configure file being "the preferred source of modification"? It is definitely *not* the case for *most* configure files of this type, so you need to supply some evidence if you're going to argue yours is special. Actually, screw it, no need to bother, upstream moved to CMake: https://github.com/kallisti5/glee If you look through the log you'll notice upstream added the configure file in the very first commit, as GLeeScripts/linux/linuxfiles/configure Then the next edit to it was commit 65df404ebdb253e0aa7429405196df4104dda9b6 which deleted the file as being "unused". So it looks like we'll never get the source code to the file (unless the author is still contactable and has it saved privately somewhere.) Anyway just update to the latest version (from 2011, lol) and use CMake. To re-iterate my first point though, if in the future this issue crops up again, you need to supply evidence that ./configure is "preferred source of modification" because that contradicts all other experience of autotools files. A git history log of the author hand-editing the file *more times* than regenerating the file from configure.ac would suffice. Also licenses are not relevant to *whether a file is actually source code or not*. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
