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
