FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:10:06 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi scripst:
>> The list of packages which presently BuildRequire the
>> autotools is very small so I'm not sure this is the case.
> 
> You are missing the point -- package which is based on the upstream 
> tarball using autotools doesn't BuildRequire them. Only in the hopeless 
> situation when there is a need of configure rebuild, you need to 
> BuildRequire them. Your finding says unfortunately absolutely nothing.
> 
You're quoting out of context::
'''
1) It's micro-managing.  Packagers should know whether they have to 
regenerate configure/Makefile.in based on the patches that they're 
applying.  If we're seeing widespread use of the autotools when there's 
no need to do it then it seems like a candidate to add... but is that 
the case?  The list of packages which presently BuildRequire the 
autotools is very small so I'm not sure this is the case.
'''

I'm arguing that the problem Karsten thinks he's addressing is 
"widespread use of the autotools when there's no need to do it".  If 
there are few packages that BuildRequire autotools in the first place, 
then there can't be a widespread use of autotools in package building, 
let alone a widespread use that is unnecessary.

-Toshio