Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-12-02

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 13:26 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Axel Thimm schrieb:
> > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:00:16AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >>> Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net:
> > >>>    smart
> > >>>      FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> > >>>      FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> > >>>      FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> > >> I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report
> > >> until we get closer to test time.  Since rawhide occasionally doesn't
> > >> build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when
> > >> fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often
> > >> isn't pertinent.
> > > FWIW the smart build fails on KDE not liking the newest autoconf:

This a stupid and broken script in smart's source
(contrib/ksmarttray/admin/cvs.sh).

Either fix this script, kickass upstream to fix it or abandon
ksmarttray.

> > > [...]
> > 
> > Why can't you simply run autofoo on a FC-6 machine, create a patch,
> > bzip2 it and import it to the look aside cache and then use it as %patch
> > from the spec file? That what several people recommend on different
> > fedora-lists in the past, as they say "it's bad to run autofoo in a spec
> > file".
> 
> You end up with undeterministic builds that fail only
> sometimes. 
>
> That's because if master and generated files are changed at
> the same time, e.g. through a patch, then make may consider the
> generated files not to be newer that the master and will try to
> regenerate nonetheless.

Sorry, Axel, this is nonsense.

Ralf