Re: Calling autoconf in a spec.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Exactly patching generated code is just wrong period.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux