an update to automake-1.11?

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>>
>>> Orcan Ogetbil writes:
>>>
>>>> Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might
>>>> go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile.
>>>
>>> I already did, several times. You just ignored it.
>>>
>>
>> Would you kindly give quotes or links to these examples? I read all
>> your messages for the 5th time and I still can't find your examples.
>
> # Message-ID: <cone.1246920650.559785.28501.500 at commodore.email-scan.com>
>
> # 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 specifically cited the potential danger from rebuilding configure that
> came out of a different version of autoconf than what the upstream used --
> and I explicitly stated this three or four times.
>

Yes you did say that it is dangerous a few times. But you never said
what the consequences would be, what the dangers actually are.

The only one closest example was given by Mark McLoughlin:

> I used to avoid re-running autotools in rpm builds because I worried
> that a future autotools update would subtly screw up the build - e.g.
> disabling a previously enabled feature in the built package.

but this will hardly go unnoticed.

> It just fits into your blind spot so nicely -- because you are firmly
> convinced that there is never any downside, you completely ignore everytime
> someone brings up an obvious one.
>

Hold on there. I am not ignoring. I am curiously reading because, as I
said, I'm willing to learn.

I am completely neutral about this issue. You don't need to fight me
:) Just show me some evidence so I'll get convinced into your side.

> Tell me what -- every time you choose to rebuild an upstream's configure --
> do you always notice which specific version of autoconf the upstream used
> originally? Well, unless you always do so, it's very easy for something to
> go "unnoticed" by you.
>

What is this "something"? I am begging you to give me one (1) example.
I am not sarcastic at all. I am very sincere in this statement.

No, I don't really check what version of autotools upstream used. But
I look at the build logs and check the resulting binary.  If
everything looks reasonable I send it to updates-testing. I keep it
there for about 2 weeks (sometimes longer but most usually not
shorter). If there are no complaints I then push it to stable.

So, let us start from the beginning: Let's say I modify configure.ac
and use automake/autoconf during building my package. The package
builds and seems to work "fine". In what step can I miss "something"?
What will this "something" be?

Please stop the fight and help me. I need help. Thanks,
Orcan