On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil writes: > >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: >>> >>> Orcan Ogetbil writes: >>> >>>> Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might >>>> go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile. >>> >>> I already did, several times. You just ignored it. >>> >> >> Would you kindly give quotes or links to these examples? I read all >> your messages for the 5th time and I still can't find your examples. > > # Message-ID: <cone.1246920650.559785.28501.500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > # 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 specifically cited the potential danger from rebuilding configure that > came out of a different version of autoconf than what the upstream used -- > and I explicitly stated this three or four times. > Yes you did say that it is dangerous a few times. But you never said what the consequences would be, what the dangers actually are. The only one closest example was given by Mark McLoughlin: > I used to avoid re-running autotools in rpm builds because I worried > that a future autotools update would subtly screw up the build - e.g. > disabling a previously enabled feature in the built package. but this will hardly go unnoticed. > It just fits into your blind spot so nicely -- because you are firmly > convinced that there is never any downside, you completely ignore everytime > someone brings up an obvious one. > Hold on there. I am not ignoring. I am curiously reading because, as I said, I'm willing to learn. I am completely neutral about this issue. You don't need to fight me :) Just show me some evidence so I'll get convinced into your side. > Tell me what -- every time you choose to rebuild an upstream's configure -- > do you always notice which specific version of autoconf the upstream used > originally? Well, unless you always do so, it's very easy for something to > go "unnoticed" by you. > What is this "something"? I am begging you to give me one (1) example. I am not sarcastic at all. I am very sincere in this statement. No, I don't really check what version of autotools upstream used. But I look at the build logs and check the resulting binary. If everything looks reasonable I send it to updates-testing. I keep it there for about 2 weeks (sometimes longer but most usually not shorter). If there are no complaints I then push it to stable. So, let us start from the beginning: Let's say I modify configure.ac and use automake/autoconf during building my package. The package builds and seems to work "fine". In what step can I miss "something"? What will this "something" be? Please stop the fight and help me. I need help. Thanks, Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
