drago01 writes:
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.
Ok, then when you patch configure.in, configure.ac, and/or Makefile.am, be sure to also specify:
BuildRequires: autoconf=[version] and BuildRequires: automake=[version] in order to have a reproducible build.
Attachment:
pgp3o_VYncid7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
