On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 19:08, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > 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. Working around this topic is simple - Split the diff into two: One containing the patches to the sources (configure.acs, Makefile.ams) and one patch containing the generated files. Ralf
