Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 14:17 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 10:54 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > > Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:48 +0100 > > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > > > > > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target" > > > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only > > > "generated by the build target), which implies "rebuild everything in > > > the build target". > > > > I fully agree with you here: the build target should also build Makefile.in > > from Makefile.am, for example. Thus we clean *.in, *.sub, *.guess, in the > > clean > > target. > > The files you mention belong to the maintainer-clean target. To remove > them in the debian/rules clean target you would often have to repackage > the source tarball, which often includes patching, because many > autotools-based build environments do not fully implement > maintainer-clean. Otherwise you would need to duplicate maintainer-clean > in the debian/rules clean target (good luck with large source archives, > maybe including even sub-projects!). You further need to build depend on > the whole autotools chain + additional tools like gnome-doc-utils or > intltool or ....
I even forgot some point: The scripts (often: autogen.sh) to (re-)create the build environment are normally only part of the upstream VCS but are not shipped with the source tarball. So even if the project fully implemented maintainer-clean, you would need to copy this file from the upstream VCS or write it yourself to recreate the build environment. But these scripts are sometimes more complicated than a simple call to autoheader, aclocal, autoconf and automake. I think the idea to use the pure VCS source without any autotools-generated file creates much more issues than it maybe solves. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
