Fabian Greffrath <[email protected]> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, den 10.02.2010, 12:43 -0800 schrieb Ben Pfaff:
>> I'm not sure whether these should go into the "autoconf" binary
>> package or a separate binary package. I see both practices in
>> the archive.
>
> Maybe it would make sense to introduce an additional package
> "dh-autoreconf" that depends on autoconf, automake and (at least
> recommends) libtool; without these the autoreconf script IMHO doesn't
> make much sense anyway. This package doesn't need to be necesarrily
> maintained by you alone, though.
This seems like a fine idea to me.
Once we decide to do that, though, I'm not sure that there's any
need for a connection to the Autoconf source package. It seems
to me that it could be maintained just as well completely
separately. I'm not eager to be the one to do that; I am already
overloaded.
I didn't see any responses to your questions below, either,
especially the one to Henrique, which could moot the need for a
dh-autoreconf package:
> However, I am still thinking about shipping both sets of scripts, the
> ones (i.e. mine) that simply update and restore config.{guess,sub}
> (because that's really sufficient in some cases) and the other ones
> (i.e. Julian's) that do the whole autoreconf.
>
> @Joey: Would it be possible to make the scripts "depend" on each other?
> If not, they could still "remove_command" each other in the dh sequence
> file to not do duplicate work, just as in the python_central vs.
> python-support case. Or?
>
> @Henrique: If I renamed my initial scripts to dh_config-scripts_update
> and dh_config-scripts_restore and renamed the dh sequence addon to
> config-scripts.pm, would you then accept them in autotools-dev? The
> actual names are still subject to discussion of course. ;)
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
