Hello, On antradienis 01 Gruodis 2009 23:53:09 Joey Hess wrote: > So, it would probably be nice if there were some way to avoid needing this > boilerplate when using a minimal rules file. I can see basically two ways > to do it: > > * Modify debhelper's automake buildsystem to handle the config.sub on its > own. This would probably only be suitable for a new compat level, as it > risks breaking weird packages. Another problem is that either debhelper or > the source package would need to depend on autotools-dev. > We probably don't want debhelper to have that dependency, but if the > source package forgot to add a build-depends, it would build > inconsistently and probably fai on just those autobuilders where the new > config.sub is needed. > > * Add commands with names such as dh_autotools_update and > dh_autotools_clean to autotools-dev itself. Plus a debhelper sequence > addon, so users could enable them via "dh $@ --with autotools-dev".
* Isn't this a perfect use case for a build system specific option (#543507)?
You could enable this config.sub handling in autoconf.pm if e.g. --autotools-
prep is passed to dh_auto_*. In my opinion, inventing another two dh_*
commands is kind of overkill since this config.{sub,guess} stuff is pretty
much autoconf specific. What is more, this way not only dh users could benefit
from this but also packages calling dh_auto_{configure,clean} directly.
--
Modestas Vainius <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
