autoconf and epel-5

[Ralf Corsepius]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:47:07AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Patches? ... Patches created by regenerating modified autotools
>> input files?
>>
>> That won't be different from running autotools at build-time. With one
>> exception: you get a chance to examine the patch and verify it and the
>> results it produces -- you can't do that with unattended rebuilds in a
>> build system where the autotools versions may change any time and cause
>> unexpected side-effects.
> 
> In some theoretical world perhaps.

Absolutely not. These cases are real.

It's simply that

* most real world cases are close being pretty trivial
* the more current the autotools have been the original configuration s 
based on, the less likely is a potential breakdown caused by autoreconf etc.


> In reality though - the patches are full of unintended changes (eg.
> if there is a change of autoconf), and even if you get a minimal
> patch, it's still a patch to some giant shell script which is very
> hard to verify.  Also in the real world, builds don't tend to break
> because of autotools changes, and if they do, they're much simpler to
> fix.
Only if you notice them - In many cases you only notice them when 
something hits your eyes.

> Don't believe me?
I know you're right, but ...

>  Let's try it:

... try the same with gcc, binutils, gdb, newlib, firefox, evolution or 
some less common gnome pacakges ...

... try the same with an modern auto*tool configuration on an OS being 
equipped with outdated tools (e.g. RHEL 4 or older)

... plenty of surprises are lurking for you ;)

Ralf