Guido van Steen <vanst...@users.sourceforge.net> writes: > I maintain a package that does not need any compiling. Still upstream > development is done using autoconf and autotools. Building the Debian > package yields a single binary package for all architectures. AFAIK in > this case I need neither dh-autoreconf nor autotools-dev. Correct me if > I am wrong though... IMO this could be useful information for the wiki > as well.
I would still use dh-autoreconf. It's not as critical, since it's unlikely to be necessary for supporting new architectures, but I think the Autoconf and Automake files are better treated as source, and the generated files regenerated on every build. This ensures that the files can still be generated from the source, which in turn ensures that anyone wanting to make changes to the source package will be able to do so easily. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87bnsqmka5....@windlord.stanford.edu
