On Sat October 11 2008, Braden McDaniel wrote: > When the estimate of "300 broken packages" was tossed out in the libtool > 2.2.x thread, I figured there was no way *that* many packages could be > running autoreconf or libtoolize. But I have been surprised to find no > advice against this practice in Fedora's packaging guidelines; and in > light of that, the number is not quite so incredible. There is a draft about this at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoConf > While forbidding the use of autoreconf (or similar: autoconf, automake, > libtoolize, etc.) in specfiles is probably too extreme, I do think it's > appropriate for the packaging guidelines to point out the pitfalls of > this practice and advise packagers to avoid it where possible. I have read either in the wiki or on this mailing list, that one should run autoreconf locally and create a patch from this, that is then used within the spec. Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
