[Wouter Verhelst]
> It has nothing to do with "being afraid to", but everything with "not
> needing to".
There's lots of things we don't _need_ to do but we do anyway, as a
matter of quality of implementation. I believe that building a package
from source is something we should do as well, if on
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:42:09AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Michael Poole]
> > On top of the default automake behavior being horribly broken, does
> > that make usual revision control practices horribly broken?
>
> It really bothers me to hear people claim as a best practice that you
> sho
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
> It's true that you can, but it's no excuse. Upstream has reason to
> ship pre-built automake/autoconf output, because historically, random
> users could be expected to have 'make' and a C compiler, but couldn't
> be expected t
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Even make breaks from time to time. I distinctly remeber an update of
> make that caused problems. There are also several gcc versions that
> are quite different in their behaviour.
Yes, and we treat such instances as bugs and fix them - whether it's
fixing your packages
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> The big problem is that those autogenerated build scripts will be non
>> deterministic on the buildd network and on users system. Depending on
>> the installed packages (automake/autoconf versions) you get different
>> results
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> The big problem is that those autogenerated build scripts will be non
> deterministic on the buildd network and on users system. Depending on
> the installed packages (automake/autoconf versions) you get different
> results and often failures. :(
What low expectations we
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Michael Poole]
>> On top of the default automake behavior being horribly broken, does
>> that make usual revision control practices horribly broken?
>
> It really bothers me to hear people claim as a best practice that you
> should never recompile con
[Michael Poole]
> On top of the default automake behavior being horribly broken, does
> that make usual revision control practices horribly broken?
It really bothers me to hear people claim as a best practice that you
should never recompile configure.ac or Makefile.am except under
controlled cond
8 matches
Mail list logo
