Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-12-02

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Axel Thimm schrieb:
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:00:16AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>> Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net:
> >>>    smart
> >>>      FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> >>>      FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> >>>      FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> >> I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report
> >> until we get closer to test time.  Since rawhide occasionally doesn't
> >> build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when
> >> fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often
> >> isn't pertinent.
> > FWIW the smart build fails on KDE not liking the newest autoconf:
> > [...]
> 
> Why can't you simply run autofoo on a FC-6 machine, create a patch,
> bzip2 it and import it to the look aside cache and then use it as %patch
> from the spec file? That what several people recommend on different
> fedora-lists in the past, as they say "it's bad to run autofoo in a spec
> file".

You end up with undeterministic builds that fail only
sometimes. That's because if master and generated files are changed at
the same time, e.g. through a patch, then make may consider the
generated files not to be newer that the master and will try to
regenerate nonetheless.

The way out would be to either use configure switches to disable these
Makefile rules, or if not available to make two patches and add a
sleep 1 in between.

But the true trouble is in kde and autoconf not liking each other and
that needs to be fixed instead of pasted over :)

Furthermore such an issue gets lost in the tides of time: If I would
now use patches made by FC6's autoconf and FC7 upwards cannot
regenerate the patches either through the main autoconf or any
compatibility autoconf (and there currently is no compatibility
autoconf for FC6's), then I'll get in trouble on the next fix needed
on the master files (unless I keep a copy of FC6 forever).

Finally yet another argument against pregenerated patches to autotools
generated files is that this way one would never detect the need for an
autotools compatibility package.

So all in all IMHO a distro must be able to regenerate the autotool
generated files.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061203/47366693/attachment.sig>