On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:59:10AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I don't see why it can't be patched to work like almost every other tool > that uses a build system, but I don't care a lot about upstream. > > The (possible) issue I foresee is: somebody updates the upstream build system > to install the files too, you update the packaging without checking > that, the Debian upload is buggy because some files are missing. > > in short words, I prefer an useless call, rather than a broken package!
Done. I removed the override in debian/rules. > I'm not fluent too, thanks for checking and replying about that, it was > already > fine, but I just wanted to be sure there was a rationale for the change! > > let me know your opinion about the install step, and I'll do the final checks > + sponsoring > > > BTW, I like when a patch/fix can be upstream, so I propose another one (feel > free to reject of course, you are > the maintainer, not me!) > --- dwarfutils-20160507.orig/libdwarf/configure.in > +++ dwarfutils-20160507/libdwarf/configure.in > @@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ AC_TRY_COMPILE([#include <elf.h>],[ Elf > dnl default-disabled shared > AC_SUBST(build_shared,[none]) > AC_SUBST(dwfpic,[]) > +AC_SUBST(dwfpic,[-fPIC]) > AC_ARG_ENABLE(shared,AC_HELP_STRING([--enable-shared], > [build shared library libdwarf.so])) > AS_IF([ test "x$enable_shared" = "xyes"], [ > AC_SUBST(build_shared,[libdwarf.so]) > - AC_SUBST(dwfpic,[-fPIC]) > ]) > > dnl default-enabled nonshared > > > maybe it makes sense to enable it alsofor static libs then anyway. > (probably all the if block can be removed this way, but this is something > that upstream has to investigate ;)) I went with a mixture of both patches you proposed. I also forwarded the patches to upstream & removed the now useless exports in debian/rules. I've reuploaded the new package to Mentors (same URL).