Debian Bug report logs - #380481
autotools-dev: Anti-downgrade test

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: autotools-dev: Anti-downgrade test

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:48:25 +0200

Package: autotools-dev
Version: 20060223.1
Severity: normal

README.Debian suggest to cp -f config.sub and config.guess
inconditionnaly.

However, in the (admittedly few) cases where upstream is more
up-to-date, this leads to a downgrade.

Can you update the sample code so that tests are made (eg config.sub
--version | sed ...)

Thanks,

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-k7
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 380481@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net>

To: 380481@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: autotools-dev: Anti-downgrade test

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:42:23 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

How about something like this attachment?

[update-autotools-config.sh (application/x-sh, attachment)]

Message #19 received at 380481@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

To: Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net>, 380481@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#380481: autotools-dev: Anti-downgrade test

Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 16:59:07 -0300

First, let me apologise for the absurd amount of time it took to reply
to this bug report.

I put a lot of thought on your proposal, and while I can see the
value of it, I am somewhat wary of adding the anti-downgrade test.

An anti-downgrade feature really only matters to Debian maintainers or
to upstream development done on Debian.  Users never need to care.

For DDs, it only matters if autotools-dev gets outdated in Sid for a
new arch.

For upstream developers that use Debian, a better solution than the
anti-downgrade test is needed anyway if they need to ship stuff with
more up-to-date autotools than what we have in stable.

So, it looks to me like an extra risk (upstream could change the
format of the datespec) and extra complexity for no real gain.

Do you have any arguments which could negate the above and convince me
to add that script?

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Message #24 received at 380481@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

Cc: 380481@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#380481: autotools-dev: Anti-downgrade test

Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 22:50:41 +0200

On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 04:59:07PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> First, let me apologise for the absurd amount of time it took to reply
> to this bug report.
> 
> I put a lot of thought on your proposal, and while I can see the
> value of it, I am somewhat wary of adding the anti-downgrade test.
> 
> An anti-downgrade feature really only matters to Debian maintainers or
> to upstream development done on Debian.  Users never need to care.
> 
> For DDs, it only matters if autotools-dev gets outdated in Sid for a
> new arch.
> 
> For upstream developers that use Debian, a better solution than the
> anti-downgrade test is needed anyway if they need to ship stuff with
> more up-to-date autotools than what we have in stable.
> 
> So, it looks to me like an extra risk (upstream could change the
> format of the datespec) and extra complexity for no real gain.
> 
> Do you have any arguments which could negate the above and convince me
> to add that script?

Well, downgrading just sounds wrong to me.

If you feel it's safe to potentially downgrade all config.*-using
upstream projects (without warning), then leave things as is, but I
don't think the less-risky choice is obvious here.

Btw, from what I remember, the package that lead me to write this was
tla aka GNU Arch, which uses config.* but doesn't use the autotools.

-- 
Sylvain

Message #29 received at 380481@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Loris Boillet <debbug.10.drinkmilk@spamgourmet.com>

To: 380481@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#380481: autotools-dev: Anti-downgrade test

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:08:46 +0100

The README also says (maybe that was added after this bug report):

"The best way to get the updated files into the package is to remove all
auto-generated files in the clean target, and to use autoreconf and related
commands to regenerate the build system at build time"

In this case, config.guess and config.sub will be regenerated anyway. Doesn't this 
completely remove the need of doing this copy/link? (the files are linked in the 
'rules' file given in example)

Then (sorry if this is a bit outside of the scope of the original bug report): 

"When updating auto-generated files, always remove them all in the clean
target, and recreate them in a prerequisite of the build targets.  Do not
autoreconf or freshen config.sub and config.guess on the clean target, as
this would cause a lot of useless cruft to migrate to the Debian diff, and
can break the new quilt-like dpkg source format."

But in the 'rules' file given in example, the 'configure' target which is executing 
autoreconf is also a prerequisite of the 'clean' target. ? Am I missing something 
or ...

Cheers,

Loris

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.