Toshio Kuratomi writes:
On 07/06/2009 02:53 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:As was discussed previously in this thread, when creating packages the objective is not to patch the correct semantic level.Actually, in Fedora, it is. We work closely with upstream. If you patch the correct semantic level, you can send the patch back to upstream for incorporation. If you only patch the configure script you aren't helping upstream to improve their code.
Right. And what exactly is difficult about still sending the ultimate patch upstream, but using a minimalist patch to configure, for the actual package, for the interim?
I guess it all comes down to what's easier: vetting the impact of your minimalist changes to configure, versus vetting a freshly minted configure script for any unintended side effects from regenerating it using a -- very likely -- different version of autoconf than the upstream used originally.
I know which one I'll choose. But, if some feel that vetting the entire configure script, whatever floats their boat. Although, I suspect, that 99% of the time everyone ignores it, hoping that the new configure script works as before, sans the patch. Basically cross your fingers, ignore it, and hope that nothing ends up broken.
Attachment:
pgpZ56Xrpdu2H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
