On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:55:01PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:28:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 11:37, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > > Running auto*/libtool in spec > > > files creates dependencies on those tools. This can get unclean when you > > > want to build the same src.rpm for multiple distributions or as soon as > > > upstream moves to a different (maybe less/not compatible) version of the > > > tools. > > A proper work-around to auto*tools' issues would be to generate patches > > and to apply these patches inside of the specs instead of running the > > autotools inside of the specs. > > I agree with that, and it has been discussed on this list before. > However, for a 400 KiB tarball, such a patch can easily grow to a size of > above 1 MiB and then doubles the size of the src.rpm easily. Hence I'd > like such patches to be merged upstream. > I too think that the "proper" way to deal with problems with auto*tools is to patch. However, I think it's impractical. Not from size of the src.rpm, but from size of the patch. It is a nightmare to properly QA the tangled patch of regenerated Makefiles, Makefile.ins, configure, et al. In contrast the change to a spec file can be a simple "autoreconf --force --install" I wouldn't see this as a big problem for Red Hat (or other cases where all developres are trusted.) but in the fedora.us QA review model.... -Toshio
