On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 8:01:16 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-08-07 19:10, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > 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? > The best solution (but unfortunately, non-trivial) solution is to > regenerate configure and others using the *same version* of > autoconf/automake/libtool. Then the patch files will be small. > > Yes thats more work as well...
-- -- 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
