On 06-06-10 19:25, Magnus Holmgren, Millnet/Lysator/Debian/Mensa @ Pike developers forum wrote: >> On 06-06-10 18:15, Magnus Holmgren, Millnet/Lysator/Debian/Mensa @ Pike >> developers forum wrote: >>> If the diff is manageable I prefer to patch configure and avoid >>> depending on and running autoconf. I suppose that's the only reason >>> for the last hunk of rules.diff. >> >> I don't exactly understand what you mean here? >> If configure.in in pike is patched, then for every new stable release >> configure will also be correct thereafter? > > It's just that it tends to produce huge diffs when building a package > twice in a row unless all the files created by autoconf are restored > or deleted by debian/rules clean.
If configure.in is patched in pike before autoconf is used to export the stable pike, autoconf doesn't have be run anymore from debian/rules and can be left out. Even for emdebian. The patch to debian/rules is for the current package 7.8.352. But I think it is far less complex to try and make it right in the next stable release of pike. (So then the added line "$(MAKE) force_autoconfig CONFIGUREARGS="$(CFARGS)" can be left out.) > > I'm not sure that packages are allowed to build-depend on themselves, > but I suspect that the same bootstrapping problem may exist with other > packages as well? Since it is only a problem when cross-compiling I don't think it is right to make the package depend on itself for building. I'd opt for the build process failing and leaving it up to the cross-compiler to see that pike is missing on the host. But to be sure I'll ask in the emdebian community.
