Suggested packaging guideline: avoid running autoreconf

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 18:08 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: 

>>> If a packager wants to include changes to the build script sources in
>>> the source RPM, I have absolutely no objection to that.  But applying
>>> those changes as part of the build wins nothing and invites breakage.
>> Why should we jump through hoops to patch generated files and regularly update 
>> the patches because they'll invariably break if we can just run autoreconf? It 
>> is our (the individual package maintainers') problem to fix things if an 
>> autotools update breaks them anyway!
> 
> Because it affects more than just you.  We won't have libtool2 in Fedora
> 10 because people do what you're advocating.  That means there are
> upstream developers who will be waiting that much longer for it and not
> taking care of problems upstream on their own.
> 
Uhm... no.  We won't have libtool-2.2 in Fedora 10 because it's a big
change and it's past beta.

If Fedora is to be relevant to developers as well as users we need to be
conscious of the fact that even developer tools shouldn't change in a
major, backwards incompatible way at the end of a release.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20081012/66d2e88e/attachment.bin