On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 08:55 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:41:30AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 07:42 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:04:01PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 12:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > > Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think running autotools locally before re-rolling the modified tarball > > > > > > instead of doing the absolute minimum changes would be ok in this case, as > > > > > > long as things are scripted/documented. > > > > > > I've never run into a package whose autotools was not supported in some > > > version in Fedora, and if that kind of package does exist, then it is > > > even harder to redo the steps, so we will lose reproducablity of > > > sources. > > > > > > > > I'm uncomfortable with that, and prefer the consistency/reproducibility > > > > > of running autotools at buildtime, but that's just me. > > > > This approach is the guaranteed way to ruin, because > > > > > > > > 1. The autotools are not supposed to be run at built time. > > > > > > Unless configure.ac/Makefile.ams are patched. > > Then patch the generated files, too. > > > > > > 2. Many older package configurations do not work with recent autotools > > > > and break in often subtile ways if you run newer autotools on them. > > > > > > That's why we have tons of auto*<version> packages to cover all cases. > > Well, we have some RH-patched versions around, but we don't necessarily > > have the versions around the original authors used. The might have been > > using differently patched versions originating from other vendors or > > even custom versions. > > > > So, even using the RH-patched versions resembling to the original > > versions isn't guaranteed to work. > > In that case this means we would never be able to verify the pathces > at all, so an argument to not even let the package pass. No, it means "avoid running the autotools as part of building and patch instead to achieve deterministic builds for Fedora". > > > > 3. There is nothing reliable in running the autotools at buildtime. > > > > > > Looks like a repetition of point 1. :) > > 1. was poorly phrased ;) It should have been "the autotools are not > > designed to be run at buildtime". > > Why? I see nothing in the design that implies that. In fact autotools > promote autorebuilds when a user modifies the sources of the generated > files. <sigh/> the autotools are code generators. (upstream) packagers are supposed to generate and package the generated files, while maintainers and installers are supposed not to touch them. > > > Autotools have been known to provide deterministic results just like > > > any other software. ;) > > If people were using vanilla versions and if vendors would should > > vanilla versions, yes. > > If vendors like Red Hat need to modify libtool so that x86_64 is > covered then we need to use the vendor supplied autotools anyway, so > that's not a valid point. Not this topic again ;) Red Hat hacks libtool to work-around the bugs upstream libtool has not been able to fix for years ;) Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
