Suggested packaging guideline: avoid running autoreconf

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le samedi 11 octobre 2008 à 21:35 -0400, Braden McDaniel a écrit :
> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 01:19 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> > I wonder if we shouldn't even start treating generated autotools files the same 
> > way as binary JARs (for which the packaging guidelines mandate that they have 
> > to be removed and rebuilt from source). They're all generated files.
> 
> Probably the reason there is no guideline treating all generated files
> the same way is that doing so is a really dumb idea.

Probably the reason there is no guideline treating all generated files
the same way is some groups of packagers are lazier than others.

See, I can make inflamatory comments too.

IMHO there is no reason to allow any pre-generated file except when the
generating chain is not packaged in Fedora. As Kevin wrote refusing to
re-generate files because of peotential breakage is only papering over
tool bugs. Also it's legaly borderline for everything which is (L)GPL.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20081012/4a3548ab/attachment.bin