Re: Autoconf 2.50
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:11:39PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > The only real problems are with beta packages taken from CVS,
> > > i would suggest to run autoconf 2.13 on those sources and ship
> > > generated files along with sources until upstream author considers
> > > putting those files under CVS too, which is IMO the best solution.
> > Putting autoconf-, aclocal-, autoheader-, and automake- generated files in
> > CVS is a bad idea.
> Could you explain why this is wrong?
> This is how i proceed on some packages and am very happy with it.
It's not wrong, it's a bad idea. It causes trouble when you need to upgrade
the gettext, libtool or autotools support, and it also means that unless you
take manual action, bugfixes done to any of the gettext, auto*, libtool
packages will often not reach your package.
It also wastes CVS space :)
> > and as I said before, one will need to test-build all packages to find
> > all those that break. Anything else is not acceptable from a QA
> > standpoint.
> I would agree if this is the position of the QA Team.
Everyone is part of the QA team.
What you want is to ask the release manager if he considers "cannot build
from source" to be an RC bug (policy already says it is, mind you).
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot