On 07/07/2009 09:45 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Perhaps but it doesn't decrease the work that the maintainer has to do. > > It very well might if Fedora upgrades to a new autoconf, automake, or > libtool that is not 100% backward compatible with the previous version. > As opposed to having to repatch the configure script everytime upstream makes a new release? And as opposed to specifying BuildRequires: automake10? And as opposed to needing to know that the build breaks so that you can update the patch that you sent to upstream? > Obviously there is a class of Fedora package maintainers who are > comfortable incurring that risk and prefer simply to pick up the pieces > when such breakage occurs. > > And then there are those of us who don't mind doing 5-15 minutes of work > for the insurance that updates to Fedora's autotools will have no impact > on our package's build. > <nod> we're arguing over which of these outlooks is correct now because we have different priorities for helping upstream improve their build scripts vs making sure that the Fedora package builds. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
