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

Re: Request for Review: hula



On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 20:38 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:24:30 -0400, Kevin Gray wrote:
> 
> > Michael,
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay in responding to your suggestions, I had an issue 
> > uploading my package which has now been resolved. I believe the only 
> > thing I havent answered is the tarball issue, where you mentioned 
> > getting one that doesnt require running the autogen.sh. I do have a 
> > question about that if you dont mind. Im just curious to know what the 
> > advantage is to doing this.
> 
> It is a bug if you must have the tools required by autogen.sh and possibly
> specific versions of those tools. The source code archive should be ready
> to use as soon as it is extracted, so you could call "configure" without
> the need to create the file yourself [by running autogen.sh] beforehand.
> The source code maintainers ought to run autogen.sh prior to creating the
> tarball and publishing it.

Hi Michael,

Just out of curiosity, is there a policy in place for instances where
you'd like to change the way that, say, something is handled in a
Makefile.am (that is, change wrt the upstream)?

What I'm trying to get at is this: does Fedora Extras have a policy that
specifically forbids the use of the auto-tools within spec files?

And if so, does it mean that one should instead supply a new "configure"
script as a patch?

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 mit edu                ed eh3 com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464


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