Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's disabled [1], there's no way
to check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping
sourceless code. Forbidding it would at least deal with patching
autotools
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
As a rule, you are supposed to get rid of all autogenerated files and
rebuild them from scratch when packaging for Debian. AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
changes nothing in that case, as you will readly notice any upstream
breakage when you try to build
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:22:05AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The results of that build seem unlikely to ever be seriously tested
currently, which makes me a little dubious that it's worth making a rule
about it.
I would wager that
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 12:10 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
One example from the archive: firmware-free. Source code for the
embedded software blobs is present but at least one of them no longer
builds or never did.
[...]
I've been working on that specific case...
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
DNRC
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 12:10 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
One example from the archive: firmware-free. Source code for the
embedded software blobs is present but at least one of them no longer
builds or never did.
[...]
I've been
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Adam Borowski wrote:
If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's disabled [1], there's no way to
check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping sourceless
code. Forbidding it would at least deal with patching autotools output
rather than source.
As a rule, you
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org [111025 14:28]:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Adam Borowski wrote:
If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's disabled [1], there's no way to
check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping sourceless
code. Forbidding it would at least deal
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
If they use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and it's disabled [1], there's no way
to check if they aren't in DFSG and/or GPL violation by shipping
sourceless code. Forbidding it would at least deal with patching
autotools output rather than source.
While I like
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
While I like the idea of rebuilding everything from scratch, adding
Makefile rules to do so is horrible. Automake bungles this miserably and
it produces all sorts of random unnecessary bugs. With my upstream hat
on, I will *always* use
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
While I like the idea of rebuilding everything from scratch, adding
Makefile rules to do so is horrible. Automake bungles this miserably
and it produces all sorts of random unnecessary bugs. With my
Hi all,
Since Debian does not require everything to be built from source (such
as autotools build systems, firmware and so on), would it be a good
idea to codify in policy that every package shipping files not built
from source should have a way to completely rebuild everything from
source? In
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
Since Debian does not require everything to be built from source (such
as autotools build systems, firmware and so on), would it be a good idea
to codify in policy that every package shipping files not built from
source should have a way to completely rebuild
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The results of that build seem unlikely to ever be seriously tested
currently, which makes me a little dubious that it's worth making a rule
about it.
I would wager that majority of such results would be tested during the
build process.
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The results of that build seem unlikely to ever be seriously tested
currently, which makes me a little dubious that it's worth making a
rule about it.
I would wager that majority of such results would be
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Or do you mean that *if* someone uses this target, then a simple package
build will test it? Hm, maybe. There are a lot of failures that will be
caught that way, but some that won't (Autotools failures can just mean not
finding
15 matches
Mail list logo
