Hi there! > I admit that in my case it is a cornercase: it is an old package that > necessitates the autotools to be ran again with newer versions in order > to build. I do this with the DEB_AUTO_UPDATE* variables of CDBS. > > I placed a fake aclocal.m4 to force DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_ACLOCAL=1.10 to take > effect. > > All of this comes of course from the fact that the package seems > abandonned upstream. Actually, for other reasons I ended up thinking > that it is not suitable for Debian unless somebody revives it upstream.
This discussion and also the CDBS documentation > CDBS can be asked to update Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool generated files, but this behavior is likely to break the build system and is strongly discouraged make me feel than a piece of source code i've got suffers of something not clearly understandable by me. (It have a bootstrap.sh file which runs autoheader && aclocal && automake --foreign --add-missing && autoconf and of course no aclocal.m4). Could you point me to an explanation of what is wrong with such kind of source code? Why it's considered to be "so complex" for a package build system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
