Le 07/08/2012 19:10, Jean-Pierre Flori a écrit :
Dear all,
While working on #9167 and #13325, I was faced with the necessity of
modifying upstream build systems based on autotools.
I thought the right way to do so was to modify the autotools files and
regenerate the build system with the autotools machinery.
This has the unfortunate consequence of modifying huge parts of files
like configure and make the hg history and spkg size explode.
If upstream agrees with the fixes and reacts quickly, and if the Sage
spkg is not too much behind so that updating the upstream source does
not imply another huge amount of work, then it's not a problem: let's
just package the updated upstream sources which include the fix.
If one of the above condition is not met, then, either we proceed as I
did, which is the quickest way, and I feel the cleanest, or we directly
patch the configure file in as few places as possible, but that's surely
a lot more work most of the time, and only include this smaller patch.
Any thought about that?
Why would hg follow upstream? Shouldn't it only follow the changes to
the supporting files?
Snark on #sagemath
--
--
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
