Toshio Kuratomi writes:
On 07/04/2009 03:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:40:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:No, not if they bundle the generated auto* files with their tarballs, as they are supposed to do.They're not "supposed to do" that. Don't make stuff up.It's true there are no literal files matching the wildcard "auto*" that are generated for inclusion in the tarballs. But I think Ralf is talking about the files generated by the auto-tools (autoconf, automake, and libtool). Those are supposed to be bundled with the tarballs.
And, they are.So, the automake update should not really have any impact on rebuilding any existing well-made rpm package. The only possible impact would be to those packages that rerun automake or autoconf, for some reason.
Although I do believe that there's a small number of rpms whose spec script does that, I really think that this is not correct, and the packaging guidelines should really prohibit that. If the configure script needs patching, make a patch against the configure script, and/or Makefile.in; rather than patching configure.in and Makefile.am, and rerun all the auto scripts.
Attachment:
pgpdZdmKDYdQi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
