Status of libtool 2.2.X?

[Braden McDaniel]

On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 10:44 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 08:17 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >>
> >> You always need to run autoconf again if you've patched the
> >> configure.ac file, or nothing happens. You can run autoreconf locally
> >> and add the regenerated configure/aclocal.m4 to your patch, but it
> >> will be severely bloated.
> >
> > There's no reason to patch aclocal.m4 or configure.ac at all.  You only
> > need to patch configure.  While that patch is likely to be bigger than a
> > patch to configure.ac, calling it "bloated" is a gross exaggeration.
> 
> You would need to patch aclocal.m4 if you need to pull in another
> external macro.

No, you don't.  You only need to regenerate configure and generate a
patch for *it*.  The normal process of building a package (i.e.,
"configure; make") doesn't use aclocal.m4.  It's only used to regenerate
configure.

> I said that you should patch configure.ac so that you can actually
> send a patch upstream, like a good consumer would do. Patching a
> generated file is just a local fix. Would you patch a file generated
> by bison or would you patch the .y file? One of those is "the right
> way" and one is not.

Yes, but the kind of patches that should be sent upstream are not the
ones resulting in 300 busted packages from a libtool upgrade.  We're
talking about patches applied by a specfile build.

-- 
Braden McDaniel                           e-mail: <braden at endoframe.com>
<http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber: <braden at jabber.org>