an update to automake-1.11?

[Sam Varshavchik]

Toshio Kuratomi writes:

> On 07/06/2009 02:53 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> As was discussed previously in this thread, when creating packages the
>> objective is not to patch the correct semantic level.
> 
> Actually, in Fedora, it is.  We work closely with upstream.  If you
> patch the correct semantic level, you can send the patch back to
> upstream for incorporation.  If you only patch the configure script you
> aren't helping upstream to improve their code.

Right. And what exactly is difficult about still sending the ultimate patch 
upstream, but using a minimalist patch to configure, for the actual package, 
for the interim?

I guess it all comes down to what's easier: vetting the impact of your 
minimalist changes to configure, versus vetting a freshly minted configure 
script for any unintended side effects from regenerating it using a -- very 
likely -- different version of autoconf than the upstream used originally.

I know which one I'll choose. But, if some feel that vetting the entire 
configure script, whatever floats their boat. Although, I suspect, that 99% 
of the time everyone ignores it, hoping that the new configure script works 
as before, sans the patch. Basically cross your fingers, ignore it, and hope 
that nothing ends up broken.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090706/cabdef8f/attachment.bin