Matej Cepl wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:10:06 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi scripst:
The list of packages which presently BuildRequire the
autotools is very small so I'm not sure this is the case.
You are missing the point -- package which is based on the upstream
tarball using autotools doesn't BuildRequire them. Only in the hopeless
situation when there is a need of configure rebuild, you need to
BuildRequire them. Your finding says unfortunately absolutely nothing.
You're quoting out of context::
'''
1) It's micro-managing. Packagers should know whether they have to
regenerate configure/Makefile.in based on the patches that they're
applying. If we're seeing widespread use of the autotools when there's
no need to do it then it seems like a candidate to add... but is that
the case? The list of packages which presently BuildRequire the
autotools is very small so I'm not sure this is the case.
'''
I'm arguing that the problem Karsten thinks he's addressing is
"widespread use of the autotools when there's no need to do it". If
there are few packages that BuildRequire autotools in the first place,
then there can't be a widespread use of autotools in package building,
let alone a widespread use that is unnecessary.
-Toshio
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
