[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#733193: Bug#733193: thunar: use dh-autoreconf for better new-port coverage

Yves-Alexis Perez corsac at debian.org
Tue Dec 31 00:09:03 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 05:33:39PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:49:01PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:30:49PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > The ppc64el port requires a patch to libtool.m4.  I don't think that's
> > > in Debian yet, but when it is it will require autoreconfing a bunch of
> > > packages to pick it up.  thunar could handle this quite easily by using
> > > dh-autoreconf, which will update its copies of the libtool macros.
> > 
> > Unless we want to autoreconf each and every C package in Debian,
> 
> IMO every package using the autotools should autoreconf itself at build
> time, yes.  I'm not the only one who thinks this;
> /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz has been strongly
> recommending it for at least four years.  I fixed all my own packages
> some time ago, as have a number of other developers.

Then ask it to be included by default in debhelper instead of doing it
manually in each package?
> 
> Now, I know better than to advocate for it being a release-critical bug
> or whatever until it's somewhat more widespread practice; but this is a
> case that autoreconf-at-build-time would have avoided, so it's a good
> excuse to introduce it to this package now to save problems next time.

Or introduce other ones, I guess. Afaict, that means diverting from the
package generated by upstream. If it fixes immediate problems, then
fine, but otherwise I prefer leaving it that way.

> 
> > I think we'll wait until that port is actually introduced. Can you
> > keep us updated in case we miss it?
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid.  dh_autoreconf arranges to
> run autoreconf at the start of the build, so there's no reason to wait
> for the libtool patches in question to be applied in Debian before you
> apply my patch.  It is of benefit even without those patches since it
> means that anyone who needs to patch your package's build system can do
> so simply by patching the true source files, without having to figure
> out how to regenerate things appropriately as well.
> 
> The port itself was announced in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2013/09/msg00045.html.

Sure, but ping us when it's actually part of Debian?

Not that I'm *strongly* against ppc64el per se, I actually don't care,
it's just pretty low priority.

Regards,
- -- 
Yves-Alexis Perez
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSwgsZAAoJEG3bU/KmdcCltB4H/00O32aUVXDQSTs6bhgqe0pr
+LRHWpc8rRopKF3leD5XVlHNgkCa1Z4EHjNGHMSyoE/dvPEbrzawfhwkCSQ6qQV5
d0kNuaaxwQT2Ge4+7mqDSRlmrcNSRPztkzReKmEkas/AijpGjeUtMuOencM8zeCN
eWgwoNTsynVrkO9QAhPFXsuBp/ycpSyYsHPlTCreWhePvBePWHoMvjOG5MjI5cED
m6AD39OCUBJwuaFA6S9jRaamDe5yC7niOa/qLG+c/7inx1x5w3zLLJ/XS0Ek0YE0
i9+j9QIe+RdFNJxlJP1aSavx6O3t2TOCgCvk4Qcd0FnH2HQSssD600wNXcIqQRg=
=aoTI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list