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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 15:27 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 03:12:54PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 13:26 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > 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)
> 
> > > > > FWIW the smart build fails on KDE not liking the newest autoconf:
> > 
> > This a stupid and broken script in smart's source
> > (contrib/ksmarttray/admin/cvs.sh).
> > 
> > Either fix this script, kickass upstream to fix it or abandon
> > ksmarttray.
> 
> This script is an old copy from kde's sdk, it's no invention from smart.
> 
> In fact this shows that pregenerating files (in this case by copying a
> static version over) can be more harmful than generating in %build.
BS. 

This freaking script is trying to dynamically generate a auto* *source*
files and badly stumbles over its feet, because

a) its buggy (The version checks are completely non-functional)
b) they are abusing the autotools

> > > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > Sorry, Axel, this is nonsense.
> 
> Really? Try in an arbitray project
> 
> touch configure.ac configure
> and then watch how make will try to regenerate configure.
C'mon, you really should know better.

>  That will
> redefine your perception of "nonsense" ;)
Nope, you are spreading FUD.

Ralf