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

Re: AMD64 package help needed



On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 19:08, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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.
Working around this topic is simple - Split the diff into two: One
containing the patches to the sources (configure.acs, Makefile.ams) and
one patch containing the generated files.

Ralf




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