On Mon, 17 Jun, 2013 at 15:29:39 GMT, Michael Schwendt wrote:
One problem with that is, one cannot blindly run autoreconf -fi and
expect it to be 100% compatible with the multitude of Autotools' based
projects. Typically one will need to update the configure script, m4
macros as well as
Indeed. This was a concern I raised when we first began the bootstrap. Blindly
rerunning autoreconf in every case is a really bad idea. But doing it in a
discretionary way, allowing the package maintainer to influence what happens
(they in theory know whether this will work for their package
On 2013-06-20 14:19, Jonathan Masters wrote:
Indeed. This was a concern I raised when we first began the bootstrap. Blindly
rerunning autoreconf in every case is a really bad idea. But doing it in a
discretionary way, allowing the package maintainer to influence what happens
(they in theory
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:37:19 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
Let me be more specific:
* If upstream uses a modern autotools, than autoreconf should be preferred
(IMO).
* If not, we should advise them to modernize (and if we can, try to help
them).
IIRC, that has been suggested in the many
On Monday 17 June 2013 02:13:06 Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically from %
configure, so no need update it anymore ?
we had updated dpkg some
Am Montag, den 17.06.2013, 11:39 +0300 schrieb Oron Peled:
On Monday 17 June 2013 02:13:06 Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically from %
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid
lots of possible problems caused by just injecting config.{guess,sub} by
On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid
lots of possible problems caused by
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:59:06 +0200, Björn Esser wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools.
One problem with that is, one cannot blindly run autoreconf -fi and
expect it to be 100% compatible with the multitude
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the
obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream.
If I have some other reason for needing to touch the configure script,
then
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 11:39 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
In the Fedora spirit of everything buildable from clean sources, I
think
the autoreconf solution should be globally adopted (regardless of
aarch64):
* It doesn't use generated files as input to the build process.
* It delegates the
On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the
obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream.
If I have some other reason for
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 08:43 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid
lots of possible
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 16:57 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools.
On Monday 17 June 2013 22:58:53 Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
... I'd rather not spend the small amount of time I can devote to
open source software work messing with a configure script just because
somebody thinks they should be able to run autoreconf with a
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 16:57 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools.
16 matches
Mail list logo
