On 07/07/2009 09:45 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Perhaps but it doesn't decrease the work that the maintainer
has to do.
It very well might if Fedora upgrades to a new autoconf, automake, or
libtool that is not 100% backward compatible with the previous version.
As opposed to having to repatch the configure script everytime upstream
makes a new release? And as opposed to specifying BuildRequires:
automake10? And as opposed to needing to know that the build breaks so
that you can update the patch that you sent to upstream?
Obviously there is a class of Fedora package maintainers who are
comfortable incurring that risk and prefer simply to pick up the pieces
when such breakage occurs.
And then there are those of us who don't mind doing 5-15 minutes of work
for the insurance that updates to Fedora's autotools will have no impact
on our package's build.
<nod> we're arguing over which of these outlooks is correct now because
we have different priorities for helping upstream improve their build
scripts vs making sure that the Fedora package builds.
-Toshio