Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-20 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:00:55PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > It's not just the computing resources required that concern me, it's > also the effort involved in doing it and the disruption that could be > caused, especially if we were to do things like changing autotools > versions underneath the p

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-20 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22:04PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:50:23AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > As a sidestep, I think this target may actually be legally required for > > GPL (at least 2 and 3) licenced code. They say > > > > For an executable work, complete so

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-19 Thread Mark Brown
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:59:10AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > If we build separate infrastructure to test it, it would likely also try > to do this for every upload. And preferrably on different (or even all) > architectures we support. So if we make this whole extra check work > right, it isn't

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-19 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:50:23AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > As a sidestep, I think this target may actually be legally required for > GPL (at least 2 and 3) licenced code. They say > > For an executable work, complete source code means all the > source code for all modules it contai

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-19 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:14:24PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > > Then I still don't understand your statement above. What is the thing > > that you prefer to check outside the normal build process? > > That we can regenerate the autotools products. I answered this in another reply. Sorry for not

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-19 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:39:29PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > But honestly, I think our job is to deliver full source and binaries. > I _don't_ think we necessarily have to exercise every bit of the > source (e.g. the .am files) on every build. In fact, my primary > objections to the java exampl

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-18 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:03:24PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:41PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > No, I don't want to force a version, I want the package to force it. > > By forcing a version I mean doin

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-18 Thread Chris Waters
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > Let's compare it with a Java program. Would you consider it acceptable > for the packager to build it, uuencode it, put it in the diff.gz and > from debian/rules just uudecode it, instead of regenerating it? Well, I see one big differe

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-18 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:41PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:59PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > > > If you're willing to do things by forcing a particular version in the > > > general case then this sounds m

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-18 Thread Mark Brown
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:59PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > OTOH if the standard Debian build process jumps through unusual hoops > > like forcing regeneration of all t

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-18 Thread Loïc Minier
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008, Colin Watson wrote: > This isn't true if you just let the patch be applied by dpkg-source -x, > since the timestamp-handling bug I mentioned earlier was fixed. It might > be true if you use a less capable patching system. ;-) Eh you and me know I was referring to dpatch, sim

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > Not at all. If it's optional, it's likely that many packages will not > > > have it. Also, if the build system doesn't use it by default, it is > > > likely that many of those targets are never tested and don't actually > > > work.

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:59PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > The fact that there exist packages which work properly without > > recompiling from source doesn't mean it's a good default. IMO the > > default should be to always comp

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Mark Brown
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > The fact that there exist packages which work properly without > recompiling from source doesn't mean it's a good default. IMO the > default should be to always compile from source. Yes, that means hassle > for the packager; it's pret

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:24:43PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > Yes, I second Russ here and would like to add that it's very easy to > trigger the timestamp skews if you simply create a patch for > configure + configure.in/.ac as the files will be sorted as configure > first and then configure.i

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Loïc Minier
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I think we should recommend (but not require) that AM_MAINTAINER_MODE > > not be used, and perhaps work to specify an optional debian/rules target > > that regenerates the build system in an appropriate way. That seems to > > provide the necessary benef

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:15:20AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Autoconf is pretty stable, > > This has not been the experience of many of us. I haven't had a lot of > trouble fixing things for newer releases of Autoconf, but I definitely > have seen

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Autoconf is pretty stable, This has not been the experience of many of us. I haven't had a lot of trouble fixing things for newer releases of Autoconf, but I definitely have seen issues. And the Autoconf 2.13 to 2.50 transition and all the subsequent ins

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:07:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > This is not true if you simply build the whole package from source. > > That is, run autotools during build, remove all generated files, > > including Makefile.in, configu

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rather than incurring the pain of gratuitous full regeneration every > time, we just regenerate it when the user has changed something. Yes, > the user now gets to resolve any problems that might have been > pre-existing, but realistically either the Debi

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-17 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > This is not true if you simply build the whole package from source. > That is, run autotools during build, remove all generated files, > including Makefile.in, configure, etc, in the clean target. > > For some reason many people seem to

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:02:41PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Note that libtool is an unusual case here and isn't the same as >> Autoconf or Automake. The files included in the package (libtool.m4 >> and ltmain.sh) are not generated files in the same s

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Clint Adams
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:02:41PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Note that libtool is an unusual case here and isn't the same as Autoconf > or Automake. The files included in the package (libtool.m4 and ltmain.sh) > are not generated files in the same sense. Running libtoolize basically > just cop

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:02:41PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Note that libtool is an unusual case here and isn't the same as >> Autoconf or Automake. The files included in the package (libtool.m4 >> and ltmain.sh) are not generated files in the same se

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:02:41PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A workaround could be to not regenerate the files. This is how it is > > usually done now. IMO that is incorrect, because the compiler for every > > generated file must be in Debian. The cu

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Russ Allbery
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A workaround could be to not regenerate the files. This is how it is > usually done now. IMO that is incorrect, because the compiler for every > generated file must be in Debian. The current practise of not rerunning > autotools makes this rule technical

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:43:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > > "generated by the build

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-14 Thread Clint Adams
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > "generated by the build target), which implies "rebuild everything in > the build target". T

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-12 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Always re-running autoconf and automake would increase the number of > >> FTBFS's that we'd need to fix. > > > Not really

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Always re-running autoconf and automake would increase the number of > >> FTBFS's that we'd need to fix. > > > Not really

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Russ Allbery
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Always re-running autoconf and automake would increase the number of >> FTBFS's that we'd need to fix. > Not really. No, really, I promise it will. :) Each time we upgrade autoconf, it wil

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > > "generated by the build target), which im

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > Note that if the upstream's auto-generated files are deleted during > the clean target, then the source *must* be re-packaged to avoid > needless clutter in the .diff.gz which is of a "negative" nature. Not so. Deletions are ignored. Ever tried

Re: Bug#397939: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Russ Allbery
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > "generated by the build target), which implies "rebuild everything in > the build target". [...] > I'd like to

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:17:54PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 10:54 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > > Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:48 +0100 > > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > > > > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean targe

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 14:17 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 10:54 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > > Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:48 +0100 > > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > > > > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread David Paleino
Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:17:54 +0100 Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > We simply copy config.sub and config.guess into the build directory for > some years now and I never observed any problem with this. > > I'm really wondering why you want to make the situation complicated?

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 10:54 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:48 +0100 > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not on

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Kapil Hari Paranjape
Hello, On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > Secondly, when the clean target removes all generated files, they are > ignored when generating the diff.gz, so it doesn't actually clutter it. > It does produce some warnings during make clean, but those are not a > problem IMO. Oops. I'd forgotten

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:40:58PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > > "generated by the build target), whi

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Kapil Hari Paranjape
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > "generated by the build target), which implies "rebuild everything in > the build target". > > With the current w

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread David Paleino
Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:48 +0100 Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > "generated by the build target), which implies "rebuild everything

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-11 Thread Bas Wijnen
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 03:48:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Quoting the Debian Policy, section 4.9 Main building script: > > debian/rules[1] > > > >> clean > >> > >> This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may > >> have h

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread Russ Allbery
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting the Debian Policy, section 4.9 Main building script: debian/rules[1] > >> clean >> >> This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may have had, >> except that it should leave alone any output files created in the parent >> di

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread Raphael Geissert
Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:40:07PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz > wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:27:52PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: >> > E: gnome-translate source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess >> > 2003-07-02 >> > >> > What am I supposed to do? I b

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread David Paleino
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:10:20 +0100 Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:40:07PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > > > Build-Depend on autotools-dev, move the ofending files aside and put > > the new copy in thier place before running ./configure, copy the

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread Adam Borowski
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:40:07PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:27:52PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > > E: gnome-translate source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess > > 2003-07-02 > > > > What am I supposed to do? I believe that Build-Depending on

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Sonntag, den 10.02.2008, 17:30 -0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: > > I'm packaging gnome-translate (ITP #292909), and everything builds fine. A > > lintian check on the .changes file throws: > > > > E: gnome-translate source: outdated-autotoo

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread David Paleino
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:40:07 -0600 Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Build-Depend on autotools-dev, move the ofending files aside and put > the new copy in thier place before running ./configure, copy the > originals back at the end of clean. > > Autotools-dev's documentatio

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:27:52PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > Hi *, > I'm packaging gnome-translate (ITP #292909), and everything builds fine. A > lintian check on the .changes file throws: > > E: gnome-translate source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess > 2003-07-02 > > What am I sup

Re: Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: > I'm packaging gnome-translate (ITP #292909), and everything builds fine. A > lintian check on the .changes file throws: > > E: gnome-translate source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess > 2003-07-02 > N: > N: The referenced file has a time sta

Lintian: outdated-autotools-helper-file

2008-02-10 Thread David Paleino
Hi *, I'm packaging gnome-translate (ITP #292909), and everything builds fine. A lintian check on the .changes file throws: E: gnome-translate source: outdated-autotools-helper-file config.guess 2003-07-02 N: N: The referenced file has a time stamp older than year 2004 and the N: package does