an update to automake-1.11?

[Sam Varshavchik]

Toshio Kuratomi writes:

> On 07/04/2009 03:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:40:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> No, not if they bundle the generated auto* files with their tarballs, as  
>>> they are supposed to do.
>> 
>> They're not "supposed to do" that.  Don't make stuff up.
>> 
> 
> It's true there are no literal files matching the wildcard "auto*" that
> are generated for inclusion in the tarballs.  But I think Ralf is
> talking about the files generated by the auto-tools (autoconf, automake,
> and libtool).  Those are supposed to be bundled with the tarballs.

And, they are.

So, the automake update should not really have any impact on rebuilding any 
existing well-made rpm package. The only possible impact would be to those 
packages that rerun automake or autoconf, for some reason.

Although I do believe that there's a small number of rpms whose spec script 
does that, I really think that this is not correct, and the packaging 
guidelines should really prohibit that. If the configure script needs 
patching, make a patch against the configure script, and/or Makefile.in; 
rather than patching configure.in and Makefile.am, and rerun all the auto 
scripts.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090704/578daa0c/attachment.sig>