Re: autoconf and testing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on >> autoconf 2.50. [...] > > You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do > not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure > script is shipped within the tarball. ok, that could work too. The upstream source does of course include the configure script. I was just using the debian/rules made by dh_make, and its clean target says: clean: dh_testdir dh_testroot rm -f build-stamp configure-stamp -$(MAKE) distclean dh_clean It's the make distclean that ends up trying to call autoconf. You're right, though, there's no reason to regenerate things unless I change configure.in. thanks, Jason
Re: autoconf and testing
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jason Lunz wrote: > I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on > autoconf 2.50. [...] You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure script is shipped within the tarball.
Re: autoconf and testing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on >> autoconf 2.50. [...] > > You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do > not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure > script is shipped within the tarball. ok, that could work too. The upstream source does of course include the configure script. I was just using the debian/rules made by dh_make, and its clean target says: clean: dh_testdir dh_testroot rm -f build-stamp configure-stamp -$(MAKE) distclean dh_clean It's the make distclean that ends up trying to call autoconf. You're right, though, there's no reason to regenerate things unless I change configure.in. thanks, Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: autoconf and testing
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jason Lunz wrote: > I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on > autoconf 2.50. [...] You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure script is shipped within the tarball. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: autoconf and testing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Lunz) writes: > But I was wondering when I can expect autoconf 2.50 to make it into > testing. The problem is that autoconf depends on autoconf2.13 and autoconf2.13 depends on autoconf (>= 2.50). I don't think the testing scripts can currently resolve this kind of cycle. So manual intervention is probably necessary. What's the best way to do this: Write to aj? File a bug on ftp.debian.org? -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
Re: autoconf and testing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Lunz) writes: > But I was wondering when I can expect autoconf 2.50 to make it into > testing. The problem is that autoconf depends on autoconf2.13 and autoconf2.13 depends on autoconf (>= 2.50). I don't think the testing scripts can currently resolve this kind of cycle. So manual intervention is probably necessary. What's the best way to do this: Write to aj? File a bug on ftp.debian.org? -- Robbe signature.ng
