On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 10:21 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 18:02 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > If you think that autoconf and automake should require an extra level of > > error checking, you might also consider writing a test for rpmlint that > > checks patches for changes to Makefile.am, configure.ac, etc, and if it > > finds some, makes sure that the spec file calls autoconf, automake, or > > autoreconf. This can benefit people who are not using our particular > > buildsystem as well. > > I think this would lead to false positives. If I find I have to patch > autotools input files, I also try to make the corresponding patch in the > output files. Sometimes this is a trivial edit and other times it > involves re-running the autotools and creating a patch from the original > files to the newly-generated ones. Either way, there is no need to run > the autotools when the package is built on the buildsystem. I believe > this to be good practice and thus a naive rpmlint check for edits to > autotools input files wouldn't be that good a test. Yes. There would be false positives. But rpmlint generates other false positives as well.... It points out possible packaging errors rather than things that are 100% reliably wrong. It is up to the person looking at the output to understand what it is complaining about and figure out if there's a genuine error that needs to be addressed. OTOH, I don't have time to write this check so if SteveD doesn't do this, we'll all have to continue to remember to do this check manually :-) -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
