On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 06:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 04:37 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:31:18AM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> Thanks all for the input. I didn't realize the subject was *this*
> >> controversial. I did find the ot
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I suspect Kevin's concern is that someone stuffs some hidden shell
> code into ./configure which isn't in configure.ac. (Of the "send all
> your private ssh keys to remote host" variety).
>
> This concern has some legitimacy. But OTOH someone could stuff the
> same co
Sorry for not quoting. Btw, i in rhel5 have packaged the latest autoconf,
automake and libtool in such a way that if installed the packager can use it
without upgrading the rhel5 package and without conflict of any sort : not so
hard to do with rpm. Dunno if my approch was the best, or if it is
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 11:09:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Kofler writes:
> > FWIW, I think we should actually run autoreconf -i -f in ALL specfiles as a
> > matter of policy, even if we aren't changing anything,
>
> To what end? If you need to change configure.ac, that's one thing ...
>
On 07/04/2011 04:37 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:31:18AM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Thanks all for the input. I didn't realize the subject was *this*
>> controversial. I did find the other discussion thread[1] which was aimed
>> at completing the draft I
Kevin Kofler writes:
> FWIW, I think we should actually run autoreconf -i -f in ALL specfiles as a
> matter of policy, even if we aren't changing anything,
To what end? If you need to change configure.ac, that's one thing ...
but if you don't, you're just uselessly exposing yourself to risks.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:31:18AM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks all for the input. I didn't realize the subject was *this*
> controversial. I did find the other discussion thread[1] which was aimed
> at completing the draft I had linked to, and as you'll notice it was
> inconcl
Hi folks,
Thanks all for the input. I didn't realize the subject was *this*
controversial. I did find the other discussion thread[1] which was aimed
at completing the draft I had linked to, and as you'll notice it was
inconclusive. I was hoping something had changed (the thread dates back
to 2008)
Thanks. But the GNU build system don't require or need this by definition,
Regards
Messaggio originale
Da: Kevin Kofler
Inviato: 03/07/2011, 22:34
A: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Oggetto: Re: R: Re: Calling autoconf in a spec.
pinto.e...@gmail.com wrote:
> First of all Sorry
On 07/03/2011 10:34 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> FWIW, I think we should actually run autoreconf -i -f in ALL specfiles as a
> matter of policy, even if we aren't changing anything, the same way we
> require Java JARs to be rebuilt from source.
please no!
curently most of the fedora packages can be
pinto.e...@gmail.com wrote:
> First of all Sorry for not quoting. It is just for telling an opinion from
> someone that know the autofu well, almost. For me this idea of patching
> generated autofu is wrong. if i have to patching the GNU build system
> there is a reason of course. Which reason is
First of all Sorry for not quoting. It is just for telling an opinion from
someone that know the autofu well, almost. For me this idea of patching
generated autofu is wrong. if i have to patching the GNU build system there is
a reason of course. Which reason is right for a packager ? Imho in ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
