autoconf and epel-5

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Tue Feb 24 23:10:21 UTC 2009

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:41 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "AW" == Adam Williamson <awilliam at> writes:
> AW> The most authoritative thing I can find in the Wiki seems to frown
> AW> on the practice of patching in the first place:
> AW>
> Toshio already mentioned that this isn't in any way policy; I just
> want to reinforce the point that anyone can write anything anywhere in
> the wiki that sounds like packaging policy.

I understand this, hence the qualified use of 'most authoritative'.

> AW> If this is not in fact the agreed policy, I'd expect the agreed
> AW> policy to show up more prominently in a Wiki search for
> AW> 'autoconf'. :)
> There is no guideline relating to the use of autoconf.  The situation
> is analogous to the absence of American federal legislation regulating
> the acceptable colors used to paint bike sheds.

I would say this is an area where consistency of method is important. If
discussion has dragged out with no decision being taken that's a shame,
but I think it's not wasted effort to try and come up with an agreed and
enforced policy for how changes to autotools-managed build scripts
should be handled.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list