Calling autoconf in a spec.
drago01 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 17:38:57 UTC 2011
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl at redhat.com> wrote:
> Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> writes:
>> To add to that: I never recall a single instance where I couldn't fix any
>> breakage in someone else's canned configure/makefile scripts without having
>> to rerun autoconf and automake.
>> If there was a problem in the configure script, rather than patching
>> configure.ac or configure.in, I simply patched the configure script itself.
> Yeah, and the question is why that's a good idea at all, let alone so
> superior as to be policy. To me it sounds exactly like arguing that you
> should fix a code bug by patching the emitted assembler code, instead of
> touching the C code. Or fixing a grammar problem by patching bison's
> output file instead of the input .y file. It just seems uselessly stone
> age. And it certainly does not yield a patch that you are going to be
> able to submit to upstream.
Exactly patching generated code is just wrong period.
More information about the devel