Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:47:07AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
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.
In some theoretical world perhaps.
Absolutely not. These cases are real.
It's simply that
* most real world cases are close being pretty trivial
* the more current the autotools have been the original configuration s
based on, the less likely is a potential breakdown caused by autoreconf etc.
In reality though - the patches are full of unintended changes (eg.
if there is a change of autoconf), and even if you get a minimal
patch, it's still a patch to some giant shell script which is very
hard to verify. Also in the real world, builds don't tend to break
because of autotools changes, and if they do, they're much simpler to
fix.
Only if you notice them - In many cases you only notice them when
something hits your eyes.
Don't believe me?
I know you're right, but ...
Let's try it:
... try the same with gcc, binutils, gdb, newlib, firefox, evolution or
some less common gnome pacakges ...
... try the same with an modern auto*tool configuration on an OS being
equipped with outdated tools (e.g. RHEL 4 or older)
... plenty of surprises are lurking for you ;)
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
