Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
TL> I tend to think the "running auto* in spec files might break
TL> sooner or later" is true, but how ofter does it break and is it
TL> worth the hassle to create patches?
Could someone detail just how things get broken and what things we
should be looking out for? I'm reviewing a package now (aplus-fsf,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021) that
patches Makefile.am files all over the place and then calls the
autotools. This is a really old piece of software but once massaged a
bit it puts everything in the proper places and runs fine. I don't
see any problem with what it's doing, and I don't understand why it
would be any better to do a bunch of hacking just to avoid calling the
autotools.
I asked about the use of autoreconf in IRC today and was told its up to
the maintainers discreation as to weather its used or not. I have to use
it in the ntop spec I am working with to help fix an rpath issue.
IMHO I think patching autogenrated files instead of the source files
(*.am's etc) and regenrating them is a bit ass about face. If you have a
real issue and refreshing the auto* files fixes it then it should be
acceptable. Running the autotools because you can, should not be.
Michael
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
