[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

autoreconf vs patching (Was Re: New package for review: gnome-cpufreq-applet)



On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 12:28 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Adrian, cause there might be problems due to different autotools-
> versions we normally (at least AFAIK) solve this not by a autoreconfig
> in the spec file. We instead create a patch after running autoreconf -i
> -f against an unmodified src-tree and but the patch in the spec file.
> See sirius/sirius.spec for an example. Remember to remove the autoreconf
> cache-dir autom4te.cache/ before diffing.

Opinion differs between whether to reconf or patch.  Both have their
ugly sides.  On the debit side for patching is that it creates a large
patch of autogenerated shell code that often has little significant
change in it but could contain malicious code (so should be reviewed
when it comes from untrusted packagers.)  Autoreconf _should_ also be
reproducible so putting it in the spec is logical.

Searching fedora-devel will reveal that there's people on both side of
the argument... probably because it's kludge either way.

Thorsten -- what exactly are you thinking of in terms of version
mismatch?  I generally prefer to go the autoreconf route and was
wondering which aspect of versioning you think is problematic so I can
see if there's a way to work around it.

-Toshio
-- 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]