Calling autoconf in a spec.

[Sam Varshavchik]

Adam Williamson writes:

> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 15:12 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> > But, personally, I don't mind the extra work, see. I just have this odd  
> idea
> > of assigning a somewhat higher priority to having a reproducible build
> > script, that produces the same results each and every time. I guess I've
> > just been brainwashed by what I need to do during the day, where any kind  
> of
> > a change must be vetted, before it gets introduced into a situation where
> > unexpected downtime gets very, very costly. But, of course I forget that
> > this is not the case here, and if a future version of autoconf breaks
> > something, no big deal, and we'll just fix the package when we find it.
> > Works for me.
>
> Most upstreams re-generate the build scripts with each release, too,
> remember. So if autoconf changes behaviour, your patch against the
> generated files is very likely to stop applying.

There's a big difference between having the upstream, who knows their  
configure script inside and out, rebuilding it versus somebody else.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110704/7fba899b/attachment.bin