Tom Lane wrote: > You are overlooking one good reason for running the code generator > during package build: it ensures that what you compile actually matches > the sources it's claimed to be generated from. I've seen more than a > few cases where allegedly-automatically-built derived files shipped in > an upstream tarball were not up to date. I'm aware of that. I didn't mention it because it wasn't mentioned in the list of reasons for this policy. On the one hand the generated files might be outdated. On the other hand they might become *too* up to date if I regenerate them. There has always been version skew between GTKada and GTK+ in Fedora, and it will probably remain that way. It has at times been necessary to patch GTKada to get it to build with a newer GTK+. If I take the GIR file from Fedora's GTK+ package and feed that to the code generator, then there will also be version skew between the generated files and the hand-written parts of GTKada, which might be a problem or not depending on (among other things) how stable the GIR file is. If it turns out that I have a choice, then I'll try to figure out which approach gives a lower risk of problems, but first I want to find out whether the policy allows me a choice at all. Björn Persson -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
