Created attachment 3588 [details] [review]
gccmakedep.patch

Do we really need another tarball for one small script?  Why not just
put it into the makedepend package, and have it install both.  Saves a lot
of extra work and ongoing maintenance.

In fact, I'd be tempted to just stick imake, xmkmf, makedepend, gccmakedep,
and lndir all in the same tarball for simplicity.

Thoughts anyone from the release team?

It would make sense to me, but I'm not part of the release team.  (If you do
this, you might consider including xorg-cf-files as well.)

I've already gone on record stating that xmkmf separate from Imake is silly.

I wouldn't go quite as far as mharris, since I expect makedepend to be useful
to more people and for a longer time than Imake.

I'd go with two packages:
 - makedepend and all it's variants (gccmakedep, makedep.sh, etc.)
 - Imake/xmkmf/Imake config files

On the other hand, Imake & makedepend do currently share source files, so I could
see the argument for combining them into one package as well.

From a distribution standpoint, we'll be pulling most of these in every time an
Imake-dependent package is requested anyway.

Personally, I like the idea of one package.  It's clean, and Imake, etc. can be
dropped when they're no longer needed. I wouldn't expect any of these tools to
have many revisions in the near future...

I raised the severity because this prevents external software like
nvidia-settings from being installed without manually installing gccmakedep.

added with minor distcheck fix.  totally untested atm, but i've put a tarball up at:

http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/gccmakedep-0.99.0.tar.gz

please test and report any funkiness.

thanks!