On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Axel Thimm schrieb: > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:00:16AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>> Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net: > >>> smart > >>> FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > >>> FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > >>> FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > >> I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report > >> until we get closer to test time. Since rawhide occasionally doesn't > >> build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when > >> fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often > >> isn't pertinent. > > FWIW the smart build fails on KDE not liking the newest autoconf: > > [...] > > Why can't you simply run autofoo on a FC-6 machine, create a patch, > bzip2 it and import it to the look aside cache and then use it as %patch > from the spec file? That what several people recommend on different > fedora-lists in the past, as they say "it's bad to run autofoo in a spec > file". You end up with undeterministic builds that fail only sometimes. That's because if master and generated files are changed at the same time, e.g. through a patch, then make may consider the generated files not to be newer that the master and will try to regenerate nonetheless. The way out would be to either use configure switches to disable these Makefile rules, or if not available to make two patches and add a sleep 1 in between. But the true trouble is in kde and autoconf not liking each other and that needs to be fixed instead of pasted over :) Furthermore such an issue gets lost in the tides of time: If I would now use patches made by FC6's autoconf and FC7 upwards cannot regenerate the patches either through the main autoconf or any compatibility autoconf (and there currently is no compatibility autoconf for FC6's), then I'll get in trouble on the next fix needed on the master files (unless I keep a copy of FC6 forever). Finally yet another argument against pregenerated patches to autotools generated files is that this way one would never detect the need for an autotools compatibility package. So all in all IMHO a distro must be able to regenerate the autotool generated files. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpBDkOqUClcB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
