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

Re: AMD64 package help needed



On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:55:01PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:28:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 11:37, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > 
> > >  Running auto*/libtool in spec
> > > files creates dependencies on those tools. This can get unclean when you
> > > want to build the same src.rpm for multiple distributions or as soon as
> > > upstream moves to a different (maybe less/not compatible) version of the
> > > tools.
> > A proper work-around to auto*tools' issues would be to generate patches
> > and to apply these patches inside of the specs instead of running the
> > autotools inside of the specs.
> 
> I agree with that, and it has been discussed on this list before.
> However, for a 400 KiB tarball, such a patch can easily grow to a size of
> above 1 MiB and then doubles the size of the src.rpm easily. Hence I'd
> like such patches to be merged upstream.
> 
I too think that the "proper" way to deal with problems with auto*tools is
to patch.  However, I think it's impractical.  Not from size of the src.rpm,
but from size of the patch.  It is a nightmare to properly QA the tangled
patch of regenerated Makefiles, Makefile.ins, configure, et al.  In contrast
the change to a spec file can be a simple "autoreconf --force --install"

I wouldn't see this as a big problem for Red Hat (or other cases where all
developres are trusted.)  but in the fedora.us QA review model....

-Toshio



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