On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:53:38 +0100, Kevin wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > 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). > > The patches for the generated files are usually huge and full of unrelated > changes due to some minor patchlevel change of the autotools or the line > numbers changing in the input files and thus won't apply anymore to the > next upstream release. So this type of patches is a major PITA to work > with. I'm not asking for such patches to become a MUST in the guidelines. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
