Rather than reply in depth to any of the posts which are in this thread, I think I'll just say that both patching and regenerating autotools have flaws. I would vote against specifying that patches are better than running autoconf commands or vice versa in Fedora packages. I would support a page written that outlined: 1) The minimal steps that a package maintainer needs to do when a change to configure.ac/Makefile.am is necessary. A) Fix Makefile.am and configure.ac B) Generate patch C) Submit patch upstream D) Regenerate as necessary until patch is integrated upstream 2) How to create and continuously update patches to the generated files and the gotchas involved with doing things this way and what the maintainer should do to mitigate them. 3) Gotchas involved with rerunning autotools and what the maintainer should do to mitigate them. Neither of the two alternatives 2 or 3 is without major flaws so advising maintainers that one or the other is the correct way is not something I'll vote for. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
