Suggested packaging guideline: avoid running autoreconf

[Till Maas]

On Sat October 11 2008, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> When the estimate of "300 broken packages" was tossed out in the libtool
> 2.2.x thread, I figured there was no way *that* many packages could be
> running autoreconf or libtoolize.  But I have been surprised to find no
> advice against this practice in Fedora's packaging guidelines; and in
> light of that, the number is not quite so incredible.

There is a draft about this at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoConf

> While forbidding the use of autoreconf (or similar: autoconf, automake,
> libtoolize, etc.) in specfiles is probably too extreme, I do think it's
> appropriate for the packaging guidelines to point out the pitfalls of
> this practice and advise packagers to avoid it where possible.

I have read either in the wiki or on this mailing list, that one should run 
autoreconf locally and create a patch from this, that is then used within the 
spec.

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081011/535112f6/attachment.sig>