After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 694587 - Tarball shouldn't normally contain autogen.sh
Tarball shouldn't normally contain autogen.sh
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: pygobject
Classification: Bindings
Component: general
unspecified
Other Mac OS
: Normal normal
: GNOME 3.8
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this now (help wanted and appreciated)
Python bindings maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-02-24 13:56 UTC by jessevdk@gmail.com
Modified: 2013-02-26 07:51 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description jessevdk@gmail.com 2013-02-24 13:56:17 UTC 
Not sure if it's intentional, but tarballs shouldn't normally contain autogen.sh. Is there a reason why it's included?
Comment 1 Martin Pitt 2013-02-25 06:09:09 UTC 
That was added in the last release in http://git.gnome.org/browse/pygobject/commit/?id=b24d07577da . I can't say I'm a fan of it either, if you patch autotools then autoreconf should normally be enough. But I don't think it hurts to have it in the tarball.

CC'ing Colin for input what we should do with this (wontfix or remove it again).
Comment 2 Martin Pitt 2013-02-25 06:11:14 UTC 
*** Bug 694591 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Martin Pitt 2013-02-25 06:13:54 UTC 
For the record, adding autogen caused bug 692863 and bug 694591.
Comment 4 Colin Walters 2013-02-25 22:21:16 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
> For the record, adding autogen caused bug 692863 and bug 694591.

My take: the first isn't really a bug, and the second is just me not actually testing the patch...

So I think it does make sense to ship.  (Though of course I think tarballs are a bad idea, but I and others have to feed them to rpm and such sadly)
Comment 5 Martin Pitt 2013-02-26 07:51:15 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> So I think it does make sense to ship.

Okay, so wontfix it is.

> Though of course I think tarballs are a bad idea, but I and others have to feed them to rpm and such sadly)

I hear you brother :-) For some projects we moved to building daily packages straight out of VCS, but that's still not quite the standard practice.