On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:20:47 +0100, Ralf wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 04:24:16AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> PEBKAC > > > > [which means "Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair"] > > Correct - I didn't mean to offend Tom, but it's obvious, that some > people around in this thread don't understand the autotools. > > If people were understanding them, they would not run the autotools > inside of rpm.specs but would apply patches. Patches? ... Patches created by regenerating modified autotools input files? That won't be different from running autotools at build-time. With one exception: you get a chance to examine the patch and verify it and the results it produces -- you can't do that with unattended rebuilds in a build system where the autotools versions may change any time and cause unexpected side-effects. Anyway, in general I agree. Better prepare patch files. Relying on arbitrary autotools versions and "autoreconf" to create good and compatible output bears a risk. It depends on what projects you need to patch, on the complexity of the autotools input files, and on whether they make poor assumptions (or access variables they ought not). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
