Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > To add to that: I never recall a single instance where I couldn't fix any > breakage in someone else's canned configure/makefile scripts without having > to rerun autoconf and automake. > If there was a problem in the configure script, rather than patching > configure.ac or configure.in, I simply patched the configure script itself. Yeah, and the question is why that's a good idea at all, let alone so superior as to be policy. To me it sounds exactly like arguing that you should fix a code bug by patching the emitted assembler code, instead of touching the C code. Or fixing a grammar problem by patching bison's output file instead of the input .y file. It just seems uselessly stone age. And it certainly does not yield a patch that you are going to be able to submit to upstream. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
