Orcan Ogetbil writes:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:Orcan Ogetbil writes:Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile.I already did, several times. You just ignored it.Would you kindly give quotes or links to these examples? I read all your messages for the 5th time and I still can't find your examples.
# Message-ID: <cone 1246920650 559785 28501 500 commodore email-scan com># I guess it all comes down to what's easier: vetting the impact of your # minimalist changes to configure, versus vetting a freshly minted configure # script for any unintended side effects from regenerating it using a -- # very likely -- different version of autoconf than the upstream used # originally.
I specifically cited the potential danger from rebuilding configure that came out of a different version of autoconf than what the upstream used -- and I explicitly stated this three or four times.
It just fits into your blind spot so nicely -- because you are firmly convinced that there is never any downside, you completely ignore everytime someone brings up an obvious one.
Tell me what -- every time you choose to rebuild an upstream's configure -- do you always notice which specific version of autoconf the upstream used originally? Well, unless you always do so, it's very easy for something to go "unnoticed" by you.
Thank you for playing.
Description: PGP signature