Adam Williamson writes:
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 15:12 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:> But, personally, I don't mind the extra work, see. I just have this odd idea> of assigning a somewhat higher priority to having a reproducible build > script, that produces the same results each and every time. I guess I've> just been brainwashed by what I need to do during the day, where any kind of> a change must be vetted, before it gets introduced into a situation where > unexpected downtime gets very, very costly. But, of course I forget that > this is not the case here, and if a future version of autoconf breaks > something, no big deal, and we'll just fix the package when we find it. > Works for me. Most upstreams re-generate the build scripts with each release, too, remember. So if autoconf changes behaviour, your patch against the generated files is very likely to stop applying.
There's a big difference between having the upstream, who knows their configure script inside and out, rebuilding it versus somebody else.
Attachment:
pgpyYHlorex8R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
