On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:36 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 03:57 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > On 7/6/09 6:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Introducing side-effects is something to watch out for but
> >> patching configure instead of the true source is a short term fix, not a
> >> long term solution.
> >
> > *Any* patch should be viewed as a short-term fix. A patch that needs to
> > persist indefinitely suggests broken maintainership somewhere along the
> > line--either upstream, of the Fedora package in question, or elsewhere
> > in Fedora's infrastructure.
> >
> <nod> But one of those patches is upstreamable and the other is not.
> The upstreamable patch is a step on the road to the long term fix. The
> non-upstreamable one is a dead-end.
Creating a patch to configure/Makefile.in in no way precludes a package
maintainer from sending an analogous patch to configure.ac/Makefile.am
upstream. So, yes, it's a "dead end" that:
1. reduces the size of the changeset between the upstream package
and the one Fedora actually builds and
2. improves the resiliency of the package build to changes to
Fedora's autotools chain.
--
Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
