Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Hi all, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 17.02.2010 20:50, schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: Looks good, feel free to upload it when you feel like it. Thanks, but I am not a DD and have no upload rights. :( I am fine with those changes as well. Well, I will get to it soon enough, and any other DD that is in the loop, feel free to upload the NMU. I have prepared packages and put them on mentors.d.n, please upload: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autotools-dev/autotools-dev_20090611.1+nmu1.dsc Cheers, Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am 17.02.2010 20:50, schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: Looks good, feel free to upload it when you feel like it. Thanks, but I am not a DD and have no upload rights. :( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 17.02.2010 20:50, schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: Looks good, feel free to upload it when you feel like it. Thanks, but I am not a DD and have no upload rights. :( Well, I will get to it soon enough, and any other DD that is in the loop, feel free to upload the NMU. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am Dienstag, den 16.02.2010, 14:16 -0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes
Holschuh:
Would you agree on _updateconfig and _restoreconfig ?
I've prepared an NMU to finally implement this feature, please find it
attached to this mail. I tried to stay close to what has been done in
the quilt package, but refrained from changing documentation, package
description etc.
Cheers,
Fabian
diff -Nru autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/autotools-dev.dirs autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/autotools-dev.dirs
--- autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/autotools-dev.dirs 2009-07-23 22:34:12.0 +0200
+++ autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/autotools-dev.dirs 2010-02-17 10:45:25.0 +0100
@@ -1 +1,3 @@
+usr/bin
usr/share/misc
+usr/share/perl5/Debian/Debhelper/Sequence
diff -Nru autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/autotools_dev.pm autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/autotools_dev.pm
--- autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/autotools_dev.pm 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/autotools_dev.pm 2010-02-17 10:18:42.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl
+use warnings;
+use strict;
+use Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Lib;
+
+insert_before(dh_auto_configure, dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig);
+insert_before(dh_clean, dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig);
+
+1;
diff -Nru autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/changelog autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/changelog
--- autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/changelog 2009-07-23 22:34:12.0 +0200
+++ autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/changelog 2010-02-17 10:53:41.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,16 @@
+autotools-dev (20090611.1+nmu1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Add new dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig and dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig
+commands to be used within debhelper. Also add a debhelper addon so that
+the dh command can update and restore config.{guess,sub} files with a
+simple dh --with autotools_dev $@ in the tiny rules file provided by
+debhelper 7 (Closes: #527581).
+ * Add Build-Depends-Indep on perl for pod2man and man page generation of the
+new dh_autotools-dev_* commands.
+
+ -- Fabian Greffrath fabian+deb...@greffrath.com Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:44:22 +0100
+
autotools-dev (20090611.1) unstable; urgency=low
* Sync to upstream git 2009-06-11 [8e40fa5a8487dff4]
diff -Nru autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/control autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/control
--- autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/control 2009-07-23 22:34:12.0 +0200
+++ autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/control 2010-02-17 10:42:11.0 +0100
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org
Build-Depends: debhelper ( 5)
+Build-Depends-Indep: perl
Standards-Version: 3.8.0
Homepage: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config/
Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=users/hmh/autotools-dev.git
diff -Nru autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig
--- autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig 2010-02-17 10:53:41.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl -w
+
+=head1 NAME
+
+dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig - restore Bconfig.sub and Bconfig.guess
+
+=cut
+
+use strict;
+use Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Lib;
+
+=head1 SYNOPSIS
+
+Bdh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig [SIdebhelper options]
+
+=head1 DESCRIPTION
+
+dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig restores the original Bconfig.sub and Bconfig.guess
+files that have been backed up by dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig under the names
+Bconfig.sub.dh-orig and Bconfig.guess.dh-orig.
+
+=head1 EXAMPLES
+
+dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig is usually called indirectly in a rules file via the
+dh command.
+
+ %:
+ dh --with autotools_dev $@
+
+It can also be direcly called in the clean rule.
+
+ clean:
+ dh_testdir
+ dh_testroot
+ [ ! -f Makefile ] || $(MAKE) clean
+ dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig
+ dh_clean
+
+=cut
+
+init();
+
+complex_doit('for c_g in `find -type f -name config.guess` ; do if test -e $c_g.dh-orig ; then mv -f $c_g.dh-orig $c_g ; fi ; done');
+complex_doit('for c_s in `find -type f -name config.sub` ; do if test -e $c_s.dh-orig ; then mv -f $c_s.dh-orig $c_s ; fi ; done');
+
+=head1 SEE ALSO
+
+Ldebhelper(7), Ldh(1).
+
+This program is meant to be used together with debhelper.
+
+=head1 AUTHOR
+
+Fabian Greffrath fabian+deb...@greffrath.com
+
+=cut
+
diff -Nru autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig
--- autotools-dev-20090611.1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ autotools-dev-20090611.1+nmu1/debian/dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig 2010-02-17 10:53:41.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+#!/usr/bin/perl -w
+
+=head1 NAME
+
+dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig - update Bconfig.sub and Bconfig.guess
+
+=cut
+
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am Dienstag, den 16.02.2010, 14:16 -0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: Would you agree on _updateconfig and _restoreconfig ? I've prepared an NMU to finally implement this feature, please find it attached to this mail. I tried to stay close to what has been done in the quilt package, but refrained from changing documentation, package description etc. Looks good, feel free to upload it when you feel like it. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Fabian Greffrath wrote: @Henrique: If I renamed my initial scripts to dh_config-scripts_update and dh_config-scripts_restore and renamed the dh sequence addon to config-scripts.pm, would you then accept them in autotools-dev? The Yes. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100216132808.gb8...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com writes:
Am Mittwoch, den 10.02.2010, 12:43 -0800 schrieb Ben Pfaff:
I'm not sure whether these should go into the autoconf binary
package or a separate binary package. I see both practices in
the archive.
Maybe it would make sense to introduce an additional package
dh-autoreconf that depends on autoconf, automake and (at least
recommends) libtool; without these the autoreconf script IMHO doesn't
make much sense anyway. This package doesn't need to be necesarrily
maintained by you alone, though.
This seems like a fine idea to me.
Once we decide to do that, though, I'm not sure that there's any
need for a connection to the Autoconf source package. It seems
to me that it could be maintained just as well completely
separately. I'm not eager to be the one to do that; I am already
overloaded.
I didn't see any responses to your questions below, either,
especially the one to Henrique, which could moot the need for a
dh-autoreconf package:
However, I am still thinking about shipping both sets of scripts, the
ones (i.e. mine) that simply update and restore config.{guess,sub}
(because that's really sufficient in some cases) and the other ones
(i.e. Julian's) that do the whole autoreconf.
@Joey: Would it be possible to make the scripts depend on each other?
If not, they could still remove_command each other in the dh sequence
file to not do duplicate work, just as in the python_central vs.
python-support case. Or?
@Henrique: If I renamed my initial scripts to dh_config-scripts_update
and dh_config-scripts_restore and renamed the dh sequence addon to
config-scripts.pm, would you then accept them in autotools-dev? The
actual names are still subject to discussion of course. ;)
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/873a12jizo@blp.benpfaff.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am 05.02.2010 22:06, schrieb Julian Andres Klode: The scripts I provided only delete files that changed during autoreconf and that seems to work very well in most cases. In cases where a file should not be deleted, one could pass -X parameters to dh_autoreconf_clean. But the scripts could maybe also use mtimes+size instead of md5sums, although I haven't checked whether this works. OK, now what's the consent on these scripts? Will they be included in the next autoconf package? - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com writes: OK, now what's the consent on these scripts? Will they be included in the next autoconf package? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I want to do. I probably won't have time to actually take action until the weekend, or perhaps Monday since it's a holiday here. I'm a little concerned about maintaining a new set of scripts that I don't use myself, so I would probably have to put in a bit of time to convert my doschk or fmtools packages to use these scripts too. I'm not sure whether these should go into the autoconf binary package or a separate binary package. I see both practices in the archive. -- doe not call up Any that you can not put downe. --H. P. Lovecraft -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am Mittwoch, den 10.02.2010, 12:43 -0800 schrieb Ben Pfaff:
I'm a little concerned about maintaining a new set of scripts
that I don't use myself, so I would probably have to put in a bit
of time to convert my doschk or fmtools packages to use these
scripts too.
I believe the scripts will be widely used within a short time frame and
they are just a few lines of perl, so I think you won't stand alone with
their maintenance anytime. ;)
I'm not sure whether these should go into the autoconf binary
package or a separate binary package. I see both practices in
the archive.
Maybe it would make sense to introduce an additional package
dh-autoreconf that depends on autoconf, automake and (at least
recommends) libtool; without these the autoreconf script IMHO doesn't
make much sense anyway. This package doesn't need to be necesarrily
maintained by you alone, though.
However, I am still thinking about shipping both sets of scripts, the
ones (i.e. mine) that simply update and restore config.{guess,sub}
(because that's really sufficient in some cases) and the other ones
(i.e. Julian's) that do the whole autoreconf.
@Joey: Would it be possible to make the scripts depend on each other?
If not, they could still remove_command each other in the dh sequence
file to not do duplicate work, just as in the python_central vs.
python-support case. Or?
@Henrique: If I renamed my initial scripts to dh_config-scripts_update
and dh_config-scripts_restore and renamed the dh sequence addon to
config-scripts.pm, would you then accept them in autotools-dev? The
actual names are still subject to discussion of course. ;)
Cheers,
Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Hmm, this is MUCH better than the other scripts and/or namings proposed. Since you already asked if to be added to the autoconf package, I will just keep monitoring the bug as long as I get the CCs. If you decide it is best done in autotools-dev, when you reach the final version of the script, reassign it to autotools-dev and attach a NMU patch. After that, if I don't get back to you in a week, pester me for an upload. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010, Julian Andres Klode wrote: Adding an optional command to debhelper that likely does not do the right thing for a fairly large percentage of packages (my experience with running autoreconf and having it actually work, in the real world, is not exactly stellar) would be a departure. This practice is recommended by the README.Debian of autotools-dev. Autotools-dev best practices assume you did a full job on the build system, and got it fixed if it is not properly rebuilding itself from scratch. It also assumes you sent any autogenerated files to kingdom come in the debian/rules clean target (or moved them out of the way, if you're into that). If that stuff is in any way horked, or if it hits one of the autoreconf bugs/shortcomings (e.g. autoreconf can't take a -I for aclocal), you need to do something different. Is there really no better way to isolate autoreconf's changes to keep them out of the diff? Since debhelper already supports running configure and build in a temporary build directory, perhaps the simplifying assumption needs to be that if autoreconf is used, a build directory has to be used. You'd need to copy the whole source tree into the build directory for autoreconf to work, as far as I know. AFAIK, that's correct. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am 04.02.2010 21:29, schrieb Julian Andres Klode:
Anyway, this approach should allow us to build packages including
autoreconf with a simple
%:
dh --with autoreconf $@
debian/rules file which would be great. If you don't want to libtoolize,
and the package includes the libtool macros (ltversion, etc.) you could
even do an export LIBTOOLIZE := true in rules, so autoreconf calls
true instead of libtoolize.
Julien, I've got one thing to add to your scripts. You just check for
files that have been changed during autoreconf and remove them.
However, in most (all?) cases the directory autom4te.cache will be
created by autoreconf. Since I haven't found it to be of any use after
the autoreconf invocation, I suggest to remove it afterwards:
--- dh_autoreconf.orig
+++ dh_autoreconf
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
# Run autoreconf to recreate the needed files.
doit('autoreconf', '-f', '-i');
+doit('rm', '-f', '-r', 'autom4te.cache');
# Create a list of all the files (compared later on)
complex_doit('find -type f | xargs md5sum debian/autoreconf.after');
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am Freitag, den 05.02.2010, 10:11 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath: Julien, I've got one thing to add to your scripts. You just check for files that have been changed during autoreconf and remove them. However, in most (all?) cases the directory autom4te.cache will be created by autoreconf. Since I haven't found it to be of any use after the autoreconf invocation, I suggest to remove it afterwards: New files are also changed files in some way and will be removed as well. But we don't have to care about new directories because directories don't appear in a diff. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am 05.02.2010 10:12, schrieb Julian Andres Klode: New files are also changed files in some way and will be removed as well. But we don't have to care about new directories because directories don't appear in a diff. I know, but it feels cleaner to not have empty (and actually useless) directories linger around after having cleaned the package. So would you please? ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Julian Andres Klode wrote: He wants you to include the debhelper commands, because autoconf includes autoreconf and those are special dh_* commands for autoreconf. But they could also be included in debhelper directly if you think this would be better (and if joeyh shares this opinion). Regarding including these commands in debhelper, I am uncertian because these commands would not be included in the default dh sequences, or the example rules files, and that would be a first -- currently every command in debhelper is included in the dh sequences and all except dh_auto_* are included in the longer example rules files. Adding an optional command to debhelper that likely does not do the right thing for a fairly large percentage of packages (my experience with running autoreconf and having it actually work, in the real world, is not exactly stellar) would be a departure. (It might make more sense to do this as one of debhelper's buildsystem classes.) I also have qualms about the implementation. Checksumming every file in the source tree will really suck for large source trees on slow architectures. Deleting any file that changes during a build could also be quite suprising behavior. Builds do sometimes change random files that it does not necessarily make sense to delete to revert out of the Debian diff. Is there really no better way to isolate autoreconf's changes to keep them out of the diff? Since debhelper already supports running configure and build in a temporary build directory, perhaps the simplifying assumption needs to be that if autoreconf is used, a build directory has to be used. (Note that dh_clean already removes autom4te.cache.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am Freitag, den 05.02.2010, 15:53 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess: Julian Andres Klode wrote: He wants you to include the debhelper commands, because autoconf includes autoreconf and those are special dh_* commands for autoreconf. But they could also be included in debhelper directly if you think this would be better (and if joeyh shares this opinion). Regarding including these commands in debhelper, I am uncertian because these commands would not be included in the default dh sequences, or the example rules files, and that would be a first -- currently every command in debhelper is included in the dh sequences and all except dh_auto_* are included in the longer example rules files. OK. Adding an optional command to debhelper that likely does not do the right thing for a fairly large percentage of packages (my experience with running autoreconf and having it actually work, in the real world, is not exactly stellar) would be a departure. This practice is recommended by the README.Debian of autotools-dev. (It might make more sense to do this as one of debhelper's buildsystem classes.) I also have qualms about the implementation. Checksumming every file in the source tree will really suck for large source trees on slow architectures. Deleting any file that changes during a build could also be quite suprising behavior. Builds do sometimes change random files that it does not necessarily make sense to delete to revert out of the Debian diff. The scripts I provided only delete files that changed during autoreconf and that seems to work very well in most cases. In cases where a file should not be deleted, one could pass -X parameters to dh_autoreconf_clean. But the scripts could maybe also use mtimes+size instead of md5sums, although I haven't checked whether this works. Is there really no better way to isolate autoreconf's changes to keep them out of the diff? Since debhelper already supports running configure and build in a temporary build directory, perhaps the simplifying assumption needs to be that if autoreconf is used, a build directory has to be used. You'd need to copy the whole source tree into the build directory for autoreconf to work, as far as I know. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
reassign 527581 autoconf notfound 527581 20090611.1 found 527581 2.65-3 thanks As the original author of the patches discussed here, I must say that I like JAK's approach even more. However, since it calls autoreconf, it should be reassigned to the autoconf (or maybe automake, CC'ed both maintainers) package. Since it's still missing a debhelper sequence addon, I've attached it to this mail. @Resul: The only reason why my patch used the backup-and-restore approach in the first place was to remember where the original files initially were. If they were deleted in the clean rule, the dh_autotools_update script would never have known where to copy the files if the package was built twice in a row. With JAK's approach this has become unnecessary. - Fabian autoreconf.pm Description: Perl program
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 21:06 +0100 schrieb Fabian Greffrath: reassign 527581 autoconf notfound 527581 20090611.1 found 527581 2.65-3 thanks As the original author of the patches discussed here, I must say that I like JAK's approach even more. However, since it calls autoreconf, it should be reassigned to the autoconf (or maybe automake, CC'ed both maintainers) package. Since it's still missing a debhelper sequence addon, I've attached it to this mail. There was an addon in the tarballs in the previous emails, it's just missing in gnome-main-menu because it could not be used there directly due to not being in the correct location. Anyway, this approach should allow us to build packages including autoreconf with a simple %: dh --with autoreconf $@ debian/rules file which would be great. If you don't want to libtoolize, and the package includes the libtool macros (ltversion, etc.) you could even do an export LIBTOOLIZE := true in rules, so autoreconf calls true instead of libtoolize. Regards, Julian -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 12:30 -0800 schrieb Ben Pfaff: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com writes: As the original author of the patches discussed here, I must say that I like JAK's approach even more. However, since it calls autoreconf, it should be reassigned to the autoconf (or maybe automake, CC'ed both maintainers) package. Since it's still missing a debhelper sequence addon, I've attached it to this mail. What change to Autoconf do you want me to make? It's not clear to me from the bug log. The attachments and patches that I see look like changes to Debhelper. He wants you to include the debhelper commands, because autoconf includes autoreconf and those are special dh_* commands for autoreconf. But they could also be included in debhelper directly if you think this would be better (and if joeyh shares this opinion). Regards, Julian -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com writes: As the original author of the patches discussed here, I must say that I like JAK's approach even more. However, since it calls autoreconf, it should be reassigned to the autoconf (or maybe automake, CC'ed both maintainers) package. Since it's still missing a debhelper sequence addon, I've attached it to this mail. What change to Autoconf do you want me to make? It's not clear to me from the bug log. The attachments and patches that I see look like changes to Debhelper. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:01:16PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:47:36AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Jon Dowland wrote: I am considering uploading a DELAYED 7 NMU for this bug tonight or tomorrow. HMH, if you have plans to review the patch please let us know roughly when you might manage this and I will not upload the NMU. Well, I have some problems with the patch. I am not a groupie of the school of undue complexity so that we can revert our build trees to whatever shit came from upstream. A debian source package exists to build debian binary packages. I consider the entire revert stuff useless complexity. The second one, is that it does too little. It doesn't help the configure call with proper parameters, it doesn't help setting up debian/control dependencies, it doesn't handle updating the autotools stuff (GNU config != autotools, although autotools needs it). It just freshes up config.sub/config.guess -- so the dh_autotools name is incorrect. I have written another debhelper script (dh_autoreconf), which calls autoreconf -f -i and creates a list of files added/changed during the execution of the command. Those files are then removed by dh_autoreconf_clean. I attached a new version of this script which allows files to be excluded from autoreconf and from the cleanup. It also fixes some other problems. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. dh_autoreconf-003.tar.gz Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#527581: dh_autoreconf script for autotools-dev
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:01:16PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:47:36AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Jon Dowland wrote: I am considering uploading a DELAYED 7 NMU for this bug tonight or tomorrow. HMH, if you have plans to review the patch please let us know roughly when you might manage this and I will not upload the NMU. Well, I have some problems with the patch. I am not a groupie of the school of undue complexity so that we can revert our build trees to whatever shit came from upstream. A debian source package exists to build debian binary packages. I consider the entire revert stuff useless complexity. The second one, is that it does too little. It doesn't help the configure call with proper parameters, it doesn't help setting up debian/control dependencies, it doesn't handle updating the autotools stuff (GNU config != autotools, although autotools needs it). It just freshes up config.sub/config.guess -- so the dh_autotools name is incorrect. I have written another debhelper script (dh_autoreconf), which calls autoreconf -f -i and creates a list of files added/changed during the execution of the command. Those files are then removed by dh_autoreconf_clean. I attached a new version of this script which allows files to be excluded from autoreconf and from the cleanup. It also fixes some other problems. Scripts (no autoreconf.pm) are now at http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-gnome/packages/unstable/gnome-main-menu/debian/ If you want it in autotools-dev, just take dh_autoreconf* from there and the autoreconf.pm from the tarball in my last email. I also removed -X options from dh_autoreconf because they were almost useless. Regards, Julian -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
