Am 19.04.2014 01:03, schrieb Russ Allbery: >> OK, but again maintainers needs enough info to judge whether there is >> something important in upstream's autogen.sh or if it's all effectively >> boilerplate that a straighforward autoreconf will replace. > > I think what I'm arguing for is just running both. Run upstream's autogen > first and then run autoreconf. Maybe that's a bad idea, though. It would > be if upstream's autogen.sh is working around some bug in autoreconf and > autoreconf would leave things in a broken state.
Not only this, but assuming you configure to run dh-autoreconf with specific versions to run automake and aclocal, you run them with different versions in the end, or you have to patch the autogen.sh file. > Regardless, though, I will say that the autogen.sh script in libgc looks > completely pointless to me in Debian and I would ignore it and just run > autoreconf. The only value it's adding is probing for specific versions > of the tools and aborting on 1.7 versions, which are irrelevant actions > for Debian. (It's also running things in the "wrong" order, calling > libtoolize last, so autoreconf may actually produce more reliable > results.) There are scripts doing localization, which fail with dh-autoreconf and succeed with the autogen.sh script. Can't remember exactly which ones but it was in the xfce4 stack. Matthias -- 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/5351c51a.7090...@debian.org
