Re: [RFC] getting rid of the config.guess/sub problem when bootstrapping new ports/systems

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 21 May 2013 09:57:32 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> >> Works for me.  But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in
> >> the general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about
> >> the much hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up
> >> right when we need it for a security update.
> >
> >I know.  But there is a lot of tarballs not able to be easily
> >autoreconf-ed (more than 10 years old) and not having upstream.. and it
> >needs a lot of changes downstream before autoreconf successes.. (and you
> >need to have a quite good knowledge about auto-toolset).
> 
> If upstream is dead, the distros should perhaps reevaluate whether to
> drop the package or de facto become upstream by a process of adoption.

that's might sound great, but really doesn't line up with reality.  distros 
are chronically understaffed and becoming defacto upstreams for every random 
package that goes dormant/dead and can't survive an `autoreconf` isn't viable.
-mike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.