rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

[Alec Leamas]

On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the
>> obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream.
> If I have some other reason for needing to touch the configure script,
> then sure.  (In fact, I have done just that with several projects.
> See what I've had to do to the gcl configure script, for example.)  If
> not, I'd rather not spend the small amount of time I can devote to
> open source software work messing with a configure script just because
> somebody thinks they should be able to run autoreconf with a newer
> version of the autotools and get away with it.
> --
> Jerry James
> http://www.jamezone.org/
Fair enough.  Hope you did not recognize me as one of those who "just 
thinks they should be able to run autoreconf with a newer version of the 
autotools and get away with it" - that was not my idea. My question mark 
was for real.

My personal feeling is that the old discussion about keeping these files 
and not running autoreconf vs running autoreconf doesn't have a "one 
size fits all" answer.  If we ever will be able to write GL about it, we 
should keep both doors open. Perhaps with a recommendation about one of 
them being preferred, but nothing more drastic. Not perfect, simple and 
clean. But that's what the world is like from time to time.

--alec