R: Re: Calling autoconf in a spec.
Kevin Kofler
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Sun Jul 3 20:34:35 UTC 2011
pinto.elia at gmail.com wrote:
> First of all Sorry for not quoting. It is just for telling an opinion from
> someone that know the autofu well, almost. For me this idea of patching
> generated autofu is wrong. if i have to patching the GNU build system
> there is a reason of course. Which reason is right for a packager ? Imho
> in many case it is because the build system is incomplete or wrong ( use
> only autocof for example, but not automake or don't want to use libtool).
> In any case can be difficult to change some setting without changing the
> build system. But now is the problem : the new autofu version know now,
> and not before, that some costruct is problematic or perhaps no, but they
> give some cryptic error message. In short the right solutinn in a floss
> env is to patch configure.ac, makefile.am doing thereafter an autoreconf
> -vfi and reporting the problem upstream. Nothing of different to patch the
> code is not fhs or if new compiler flag catch an unseen possible error.
> Ideally an good floss ecosystem should work, and mostly does, in this way,
> i think. Why this Could be different for the GNU build system ? Thanks for
> attending. Best regards.
+1
FWIW, I think we should actually run autoreconf -i -f in ALL specfiles as a
matter of policy, even if we aren't changing anything, the same way we
require Java JARs to be rebuilt from source.
But all this stuff has already been discussed many times. Please search the
mailing list archives!
Kevin Kofler
More information about the devel
mailing list