an update to automake-1.11?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 07/07/2009 09:45 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>> Perhaps but it doesn't decrease the work that the maintainer has to do.
> 
> It very well might if Fedora upgrades to a new autoconf, automake, or
> libtool that is not 100% backward compatible with the previous version.
> 
As opposed to having to repatch the configure script everytime upstream
makes a new release? And as opposed to specifying BuildRequires:
automake10?  And as opposed to needing to know that the build breaks so
that you can update the patch that you sent to upstream?

> Obviously there is a class of Fedora package maintainers who are
> comfortable incurring that risk and prefer simply to pick up the pieces
> when such breakage occurs.
> 
> And then there are those of us who don't mind doing 5-15 minutes of work
> for the insurance that updates to Fedora's autotools will have no impact
> on our package's build.
> 
<nod> we're arguing over which of these outlooks is correct now because
we have different priorities for helping upstream improve their build
scripts vs making sure that the Fedora package builds.

-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/20090707/56ab1071/attachment.bin