> Note that the variable is called DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_ACLOCAL, not > DEB_AUTO_CREATE_ACLOCAL, so the feature works as designed.
Is this actually in any way a useful design? I can't think of any scenarios where a maintainer would explicitly set DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_ACLOCAL and not mean for aclocal to get run. On the other hand, I can think of a couple of cases where aclocal.m4 might not already exist - braindead upstream being the most obvious. Alternatively, I've had packages where I patched the upstream source to the point that I needed to run aclocal after patching. DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_ACLOCAL isn't something that's set automatically, or accidentally. It doesn't make sense to me for CDBS to try and second-guess the package maintainer like this. - Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
