On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 09:29:36PM -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Niels de Vos" <[email protected]> > > To: "Emmanuel Dreyfus" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected], "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <[email protected]>, > > [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:34:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [gluster-packaging] [Gluster-Maintainers] glusterfs-3.8rc1 has > > been released for testing > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:11:01PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote: > > > Niels de Vos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Patrick filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1223937 for this during the > > > > 3.7 timeframe. I'm tempted to add the need to run autoreconf in the > > > > release notes unless someone really wants the config.sub/guess files > > > > back (we'll need to update the tools on the buildserver, but I would > > > > consider that a good thing anyway). > > > > > > Please do not add autotools as a build dependency : It just works with > > > an empty config.sub file, > > > > Oh, that's genius! We can add an empty shell script that has a comment > > with suggesting to run "autoreconf --force". Some packaging environments > > prefer that in any case (Debian, I think) and Fedora even replaces the > > files automatically with their own updated copies (%configure). > > Either an empty one or an up to date one from the latest version(s) of > autoconf/automake. > > I'm not sure I know which is the better choice. Do you?
I would go for the most practical choice. An empty (except for some
comments) config.{guess,sub} and a note in the INSTALL file about it. If
we would update those files from a more current version, we have to
track future updates as well. My preference goes to solutions where we
do not bundle any copies (script or other files) from other projects.
Niels
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ packaging mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
