On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Of course I know the classical argument against this: To build a program, you
should only need to do ./configure;make;make install. configure is the
platform independant script, autoconf should only be used by upstream.
Well, that's an stupid argument
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem is, in a nutshell, this doesn't actually work reliably. If
It does inside Debian (you can explicitly choose a given version, and
upgrade to the next only after some testing). It *mostly* does among minor
versions of the autotools, if
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem is, in a nutshell, this doesn't actually work reliably. If
It does inside Debian (you can explicitly choose a given version, and
upgrade to the next only after some testing). It
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are *always* libraries in a state of transition in Debian. Using the
Debian libtool means limiting those transitions to packages which have a
valid reason for depending on the transitioning library, instead of giving
us transitions that ripple
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 08:45:07AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are *always* libraries in a state of transition in Debian. Using the
Debian libtool means limiting those transitions to packages which have a
valid reason for
* Florian Ernst [Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:52:26 +0100]:
I gave some pointers on relibtoolizing to my sponsees after vorlon
called for improved library handling as mentioned in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html.
Especially KDE applications seem to be prone to
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completelely agree. When I read Steve's e-mail about libtool
(referenced earlier in this thread), I was again confirmed in my
position (although I think Steve doesn't agree with it) that running the
autotools (and that includes libtoolize) from
On Friday 13 January 2006 19:40, Claudio Moratti wrote:
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:48, Christoph Haas wrote:
debian/patches: [QUESTION/HINT]
You are changing a whole lot of the autoconf parts. Does this have
to do with some transitions going on? Usually just the config.guess
and
Hello *,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
On Friday 13 January 2006 19:40, Claudio Moratti wrote:
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:48, Christoph Haas wrote:
debian/patches: [QUESTION/HINT]
You are changing a whole lot of the autoconf parts. Does this have
On Friday 13 January 2006 21:52, Florian Ernst wrote:
Hello *,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
[cut]
Of course, maintainers shouldn't relibtoolize just for the sake of it,
but sometimes it's truly worth the effort.
HTH,
Flo
The situation was the same for
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Florian Ernst wrote:
I thought I understood at least the reason to include diffs for a
config.guess and config.sub. But IMHO relibtooling is only needed when
certain libraries are in a state of transitions. Could you (or Florian (or
autotools dev maintainer hat on
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
On Friday 13 January 2006 19:40, Claudio Moratti wrote:
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:48, Christoph Haas wrote:
debian/patches: [QUESTION/HINT]
You are changing a whole lot of the autoconf parts. Does this have
to do with
12 matches
Mail list logo
