* Eric Dorland
[Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
| I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
| a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
| generally a bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf
| on the unpacked source
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:14:09AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Eric Dorland
[Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
| I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
| a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
| generally a bad
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Eric Dorland
[Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
| I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
| a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
| generally a bad thing. You should just
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
to change any part of the program and barring real errors, it should
still build. That upstream writes crap
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
to change any part of the program and barring real errors, it should
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
relevant auto* be installed.
Or you put the patch in the .diff.gz. I think that's the best option.
Uh, it's
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
relevant auto* be installed.
Or you put the patch in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Dorland wrote:
Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
However I feel the use of a build-dependency is a legitimate one if the
package is built
* Philipp Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Dorland wrote:
Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
However I feel the use of a build-dependency
Eric Dorland wrote:
Why? Just run auto* on the unpacked tarball and ship them in the
.diff.gz? What makes it more legitimate in that case? That the
upstream developers didn't run the autotools? They would have, if it
were a proper release.
Well, I did not talk about regular snapshots, but
Well, I did not talk about regular snapshots, but about direct exports.
Some tools in Debian (like darcs-buildpackage, thank you John for
this) make it possible to make such SCM builds. However the Autotools
output is not versioned, so not included in the tarball.
It is possible to run
; The command xmessage -timeout 10 `fan -n` listed in a menu file
does not exist.
W: toshutils; The command xmessage -timeout 10 `fan` listed in a menu file
does not exist.
When building toshutils, which I am in the process of adopting, on
Anibal's pbuilder, I get the above linda warnings. I asked
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
W: toshutils; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on
the source tree before the source package is built.
There's lots
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
W: toshutils; The file config.guess contains a timestamp line that is
less than 2002.
The autoconf file shown above contains a timestamp variable that has a
year that is less than 2002. This
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
W: toshutils; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Build-depend on autotools-dev, and copy /usr/share/misc/config.guess
and config.sub into place at build time. ln -fs also works. It's a
very light build dep, so there's not much point in patching the right
files into the source
* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
W: toshutils; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on
the source tree
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf on the
unpacked source and ship it in the .diff.gz. An
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
bad thing. You should just run automake and/or
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf on the
unpacked source and ship
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
bad thing. You should just run
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:03:14PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
bad ideas. It makes the build more
23 matches
Mail list logo
