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.)


Reply via email to