On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 15:01 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > > Adam Jackson wrote: > > Steve Dickson wrote: > >> Dennis Gilmore wrote: > >>> the guidelines are pretty clear on what is and is not included by > >>> default. If you call autoconf or outomake then you need to BR them > >>> its fairly simple. The problem should have shown up in your local > >>> mock build before you committed the build. > >> Thats the point... nothing error-ed out because there was an > >> outdated makefile that already existed and so it was used... > >> Again, this is an *undetectable* situation that will cause > >> rpm corruption but is easily fixed by simply adding autoconf > >> and automake to the buildroot.. > > > > You patched Makefile.am, but didn't re-run automake? Your packaging > > already had a bug then. > I agree with both you and Jessie in the fact that it was a bug > in my spec file, but that not the point... > > This point is there is a huge hole in the build process that > will silently and cleanly produce a severely corrupted rpm > that can have a ripple effect on the entire system... And > there is an incredibly easy way to close that hole by simply > adding two very small but highly used packages... I really > don't seen the problem with this... AFAIK they are very rarely used. One of autoconf's design goals is to not be needed from the dist tarball. I don't think automake makes this same guarantee but it makes an attempt. The buggy package was created by the bug in your spec and the question is whether there's any difference between this case and any other missing optional BuildRequire. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
