On 10/13/2016 08:03 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:48:00AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: >> W. Martin Borgert: >>> On 2016-10-12 21:41, Vincent Bernat wrote: >>>> ❦ 12 octobre 2016 18:54 CEST, Martín Ferrari <tin...@tincho.org> : >>>>> I had always understood that rebuilding from source was a hard >>>>> requirement. Is this not the case any more? >>>> >>>> This has never been the case. Since the beginning, there was no >>>> requirements to regenerate autoconf stuff. >>> >>> I personally see auto* more critical than minified JS. >>> The chance that it is impossible to rebuild is higher :~) >>> >>> Quoting https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf: >>> "Autoreconfing on build is good practice in Debian." >>> Not required, but recommended. >>> >>> [...] >>> >> >> Personally, I am hoping we will soon reach critical mass on >> "autoreconf'ing" and will be able to flip the "Not required" to "Required". >> This should happen on its own as people convert their packages to >> debhelper compat 10. > > which is not possible for everyone who cares about backporting their > packages.
I just backported a compat 10 package to Jessie (open-isns), the debhelper version in backports already supports that. The only thing I'd like to see is to have the current debhelper in testing be backported, so that I don't have to change the B-D from debhelper (>= 10~) to debhelper (>= 9.20160403~) anymore and can simply do a no-change backport. Only people wanting to backport to wheezy-backports-sloppy can't use compat 10. (But they can still use dh-autoreconf explicitly together with a lower compat.) Regards, Christian
