On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 10:44 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 08:17 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> > >> You always need to run autoconf again if you've patched the > >> configure.ac file, or nothing happens. You can run autoreconf locally > >> and add the regenerated configure/aclocal.m4 to your patch, but it > >> will be severely bloated. > > > > There's no reason to patch aclocal.m4 or configure.ac at all. You only > > need to patch configure. While that patch is likely to be bigger than a > > patch to configure.ac, calling it "bloated" is a gross exaggeration. > > You would need to patch aclocal.m4 if you need to pull in another > external macro. No, you don't. You only need to regenerate configure and generate a patch for *it*. The normal process of building a package (i.e., "configure; make") doesn't use aclocal.m4. It's only used to regenerate configure. > I said that you should patch configure.ac so that you can actually > send a patch upstream, like a good consumer would do. Patching a > generated file is just a local fix. Would you patch a file generated > by bison or would you patch the .y file? One of those is "the right > way" and one is not. Yes, but the kind of patches that should be sent upstream are not the ones resulting in 300 busted packages from a libtool upgrade. We're talking about patches applied by a specfile build. -- Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden@xxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
