Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 21:01 +0100, Simon Wesp wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> i have a little issue with autoconf and epel-5 >> >> the statement of the problem: >> >> in configure.ac stands: >> CXXFLAGS="-Wall -O2" >> >> to honor the rpmoptflags i removed this line and create a patch of my >> changes. >> >> now i have to run autoconf to implement my changes. no problem in >> fedora. in epel-5 it will abort: >> http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-5-epel/1476-hosts3d-0.97-3.el5/i386/build.log > > The most authoritative thing I can find in the Wiki seems to frown on > the practice of patching configure.ac in the first place: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoConf > > "Autotools-generated source packages are intended to be buildable > without requiring the autotools on the host system. autoconf, automake, > libtoolize and the accompanying autoreconf shouldn't be used in the % > prep or %build sections of a package's spec file. Applying a patch to > update the configure scripts and Makefile.ins is preferred as the > results are predictable and packages are more reproducible." > > If this is not in fact the agreed policy, I'd expect the agreed policy > to show up more prominently in a Wiki search for 'autoconf'. :) > There's no agreed policy. People argue both sides of the problem. FWIW, I'll vote against that draft if it gets to the FPC. > Aside from that, I'd say did you read, and try, the advice you were > given in the failure log? > > "You have another version of autoconf. It may work, but is not > guaranteed to. > If you have problems, you may need to regenerate the build system entirely. > To do so, use the procedure documented by the package, typically `autoreconf'." > > i.e., see if it works with autoreconf. IMHO it is generally a good idea > to use autoreconf rather than just autoconf anyway, because just using > autoconf is more likely to fail if, say, we go up a major version of > autoconf, and upstream source doesn't have a new release in that time. > autoreconf has at least a better chance of succeeding in that situation > (though it won't always). In the most recent debate, someone said that autoreconf should never be run. Wish you had been there to lend another perspective :-) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
