autoconf and epel-5

[Ralf Corsepius]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Anyway, in general I agree. Better prepare patch files. Relying on
>> arbitrary autotools versions and "autoreconf" to create good and
>> compatible output bears a risk. It depends on what projects you need to
>> patch, on the complexity of the autotools input files, and on whether they
>> make poor assumptions (or access variables they ought not).
> 
> The patches for the generated files are usually huge and full of unrelated
> changes due to some minor patchlevel change of the autotools or the line
> numbers changing in the input files and thus won't apply anymore to the
> next upstream release. 
Read my previous answer to Michael

> So this type of patches is a major PITA to work with.
Regenerate the patch and you're done with it.