[Bug 225611] Merge Review: bc

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: bc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225611





------- Additional Comments From skasal at redhat.com  2007-12-14 06:32 EST -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Even in this case there are better way to do:
> * if configure can be patched (which is the case here for the 
>   bc-1.06-flex.patch) configure should be patched and autotools not run

agreed, this is a good solution for this particular case, provided you preserve
the timestamp of configure.ac (configure.in, in this particular case), so that
make knows that all files depending on the patched source are up-to-date.

> * if the changes are more complicated and patching Makefile.in or 
>   configure is not possible, the automake/autoconf used to generate the
>   tarball (or a compatible one) should be used instead of the current
>   autoconf/automake.

Again this is a good advice for this package, since it uses ancient autotools
(Automake 1.4, for example).

But if some bigger changes are done to a not-so-ancient tarball (using say
Autoconf >= 2.59 and Automake >= 1.8) it is IMHO better to run autoreconf on the
patched tree.  Autotools are much better wrt backward compatibility these days.

But I know that Fedora Packaging Guidelines generally advice against running
autotools from the spec file.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.