autoconf and epel-5

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Tue Feb 24 22:07:26 UTC 2009

Simon Wesp wrote:
> Am Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:45:23 -0800
> schrieb Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at>:
>> That would work.  But if you need a patch for EPEL, you might as well
>> use the patch in Fedora as well and not run autoconf on either distro.
> yeah, that would work, but the question is: "is this right or wrong?" i
> can use the patch for fedora, too, but it's more beautiful and more
> transparent if i use the patch for epel and the _real_ autoconf in
> fedora, or?
It's debatable.  I usually argue that using autoconf is easier for a
reviewer to see what's going on and better for getting the change upstream.

But the other side of the coin is that different versions of autoconf
produce different output and sometimes that output has subtle bugs.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list