Le Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 02:40:18PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut a écrit : > Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Charles Plessy: > > > No, but you appear to expect that the feature *creates* the aclocal.m4 > > > file, but the variable name clearly indicates that it only *updates*. > > > > Ah, OK. Actually, I expected the command to do something similar as when > > I type aclocal in command line. In that case, it indeed creates the file > > if it is not there. Would you have something against having > > DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_ACLOCAL doing this ? > > What would be the use case for this? If the upstream package doesn't have > aclocal.m4, why would a Debian package have one?
I admit that in my case it is a cornercase: it is an old package that necessitates the autotools to be ran again with newer versions in order to build. I do this with the DEB_AUTO_UPDATE* variables of CDBS. http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-med/trunk/packages/tacg/trunk/debian/rules?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 I placed a fake aclocal.m4 to force DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_ACLOCAL=1.10 to take effect. http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-med/trunk/packages/tacg/trunk/aclocal.m4?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 All of this comes of course from the fact that the package seems abandonned upstream. Actually, for other reasons I ended up thinking that it is not suitable for Debian unless somebody revives it upstream. Maybe you can contact Morten Kjeldgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who issued the Ubuntu bug, to know about his use case? It may be more relevant. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdbs/+bug/162015 Have a nice day, (and thanks for CDBS, I like it a lot). -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan
