RFC: xinetd autoreconf
Hello, i am taking over the orphaned xinetd, and i am working here: https://github.com/ltworf/xinetd-debian the current package has a patch that basically is a replacement of the configure script. The patch is extremely complicated and i guess not really meant for human eyes. I must premise that on my architecture xinetd compiles fine without that patch, but someone on #debian-it suggested that it might be necessary for other architectures. What i was trying to do is to use dh_autoreconf and have the configure script regenerated automatically instead of including a patch i can't check. But the autoreconf command fails. I've tried multiple versions and it always fails giving a long list of warnings about missing template and then autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoheader failed with exit status: 1 The original maintainer of xinetd replied after a long delay to my request and pointed me here, so i have absolutely no clue of what he did to re-generate the configure script. At this point i would think of making an experimental upload just to see if it builds on every arch without that patch. If someone is more expert on autotools and can see why autoreconf actually fails would be the ideal solution. Suggestions anyone? Bye -- Salvo Tomaselli signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFC: xinetd autoreconf
Salvo Tomaselli tipos...@tiscali.it writes: But the autoreconf command fails. I've tried multiple versions and it always fails giving a long list of warnings about missing template and then autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoheader failed with exit status: 1 xinetd doesn't use autoheader or config.h.in templates. You can't run autoheader on that package without rewriting the configure.in script (which I think should be done, but upstream seems to be using a hand-rolled config.h.in, so this may be intentional on their part). You have to only run autoconf. It looks like you can do that by overriding dh_autoreconf and running: dh_autoreconf -- autoconf instead of its default action. That should be safe, since the package doesn't use automake or libtool either, so the other things that autoreconf runs are not relevant to it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87394d8v1a@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: RFC: xinetd autoreconf
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 09:28:49AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: the current package has a patch that basically is a replacement of the configure script. The patch is extremely complicated and i guess not really meant for human eyes. What i was trying to do is to use dh_autoreconf and have the configure script regenerated automatically instead of including a patch i can't check. But the autoreconf command fails. I've tried multiple versions and it always fails giving a long list of warnings about missing template and then autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoheader failed with exit status: 1 Ie, the package is shipping code without source. A configure script is as far away from something readable/editable as you can be while still using shell. I don't think anyone can possibly call it a preferred form for modification with a straight face. Yet another example why --disable-maintainer-mode is bad. -- Copyright and patents were never about promoting culture and innovations; from the very start they were legalized bribes to give the king some income and to let businesses get rid of competition. For some history, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120727150302.ga13...@angband.pl
