Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507223 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(rc040203@freenet. | |de) | --- Comment #28 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-10 13:18:56 EDT --- > (In reply to comment #23) > > Mr. Robinson refuses to use this tarball > > in compliance to the autotools' working principles. > > > > Or differently: If Mr. Robinson was using a "make dist" generated tarball or > > was running the autotools in advance to building and was applying patches, all > > the issues we currently are discussing would not be around. > > No hypothetical "what - if" please. There are no "make dist" generated tarballs .. shipped by upstream. > and you said Peter uses *this one* incorrectly. Right. The upstream tarball is incomplete. > Ether you come up with a patch > or I'm going to approve this package regardless of the running autotools. Addressing this is trivial: He can run "make dist" in advance to building and either use this "make dist" generated tarball, or use diffs between the upstream tarball and his generated tarball. > IMO this is a minor issue here, That's the misunderstanding and mistake of people, who refuse to comprehend why running the autotools during builds is harmful. They are underestimating the amount of breakage changes may cause. It's worse with packages like this one, which apply autotool wrappers (intltool, gnome-autogen.sh etc.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review