On Sunday 24 September 2006 4:26 am, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 15:36 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > > Paul Howarth wrote: > > > On the other hand, by including autotools in the minimal buildroot, > > > people get away with not adding them as buildreqs of packages that need > > > them, which would then have the result that people trying to rebuild > > > these packages for themselves on systems without autotools installed > > > would come across these tricky problems, and probably be less able to > > > figure out what the problem is. > > > > point... and not having the correct buildreqs in the spec file > > would be a bug in the spec file... and the person should report > > it as such... but that is not a reason to leave a corruption hole > > in our build process that can potentially destroy a system with > > a corrupt rpm... imho... > > What are the chances of this bug being found by someone other than the > packager? Very slim I'd have thought, particularly if the packager's > build system hides the bug from him. The packager should manually call autoconf and automake if patching the any of the autotools files. they should not rely on them being called for them. and if the packager did the right thing. It should be picked up with their testing. packages should be building their package in mock locally before committing changes to cvs. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian -- 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
