On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
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(a)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.
Yes you did say that it is dangerous a few times. But you never said
what the consequences would be, what the dangers actually are.
The only one closest example was given by Mark McLoughlin:
I used to avoid re-running autotools in rpm builds because I worried
that a future autotools update would subtly screw up the build - e.g.
disabling a previously enabled feature in the built package.
but this will hardly go unnoticed.
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.
Hold on there. I am not ignoring. I am curiously reading because, as I
said, I'm willing to learn.
I am completely neutral about this issue. You don't need to fight me
:) Just show me some evidence so I'll get convinced into your side.
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.
What is this "something"? I am begging you to give me one (1) example.
I am not sarcastic at all. I am very sincere in this statement.
No, I don't really check what version of autotools upstream used. But
I look at the build logs and check the resulting binary. If
everything looks reasonable I send it to updates-testing. I keep it
there for about 2 weeks (sometimes longer but most usually not
shorter). If there are no complaints I then push it to stable.
So, let us start from the beginning: Let's say I modify configure.ac
and use automake/autoconf during building my package. The package
builds and seems to work "fine". In what step can I miss "something"?
What will this "something" be?
Please stop the fight and help me. I need help. Thanks,
Orcan