On Tuesday 2012-05-29 16:53, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2012-05-29 16:31, Richard Guenther wrote:
I find patches touching autogenerated files unwieldy to maintain.
Why exactly?
For example, there is a new warning in automake 1.12 that moans about AM_PROG_AR being absent when intending to create a .la archive. So, one has to add a *1-line* patch to the package iff it used AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([-Werror]). The expanded form, as you suggest, of this change would be a 270+-line patch.
No. You don't need to patch anything here if you do not run autoreconf.
Indeed. But consider a2ps, which was also on the list. I am attempting to rebase the patches to a2ps-4.14. I have seen at least one patch now that touched Makefile.ins in ways where I have no clue what the F the original patch creator did - or whether the diff is in fact the result of rerunning autoreconf or so. In short: patches to Makefile.in are more often than not absolutely non-descriptive. All I can do about that is rip out hunks (avoiding the patch conflict) or in fact splice (resolve the conflict) them into 4.14, and neither choice gives me any confidence. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org