[arch-dev-public] Do I need a sign-off for this...
Hi, The current heimdal package does not build due to an autoconf update (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16015). I have a patch that can be applied to fix that but I do not particularly want to rebuild given it does not affect the actual package. It is also a bit of a waste of time applying the patch only to trunk as a new heimdal release will occur before any rebuild is likely to be needed. Can I apply the patch and archrelease core-{i686,x86_64} or would that require a sign-off? Allan
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
The current heimdal package does not build due to an autoconf update (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16015). I have a patch that can be applied to fix that but I do not particularly want to rebuild given it does not affect the actual package. It is also a bit of a waste of time applying the patch only to trunk as a new heimdal release will occur before any rebuild is likely to be needed.
Can I apply the patch and archrelease core-{i686,x86_64} or would that require a sign-off?
The whole point of having separate tags like we do is so that the item in the tag is identical to the package. That said, if it does not build, that is a problem. If this patch only touches autoconf files and the build ends up nearly identical to the existing package (please confirm file sizes, at least), I guess it'd be ok in this specific case. We shouldn't make a habit of this, however
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
The current heimdal package does not build due to an autoconf update (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16015). I have a patch that can be applied to fix that but I do not particularly want to rebuild given it does not affect the actual package. It is also a bit of a waste of time applying the patch only to trunk as a new heimdal release will occur before any rebuild is likely to be needed.
Can I apply the patch and archrelease core-{i686,x86_64} or would that require a sign-off?
The whole point of having separate tags like we do is so that the item in the tag is identical to the package. That said, if it does not build, that is a problem.
If this patch only touches autoconf files and the build ends up nearly identical to the existing package (please confirm file sizes, at least), I guess it'd be ok in this specific case.
We shouldn't make a habit of this, however
In this case the meat of the patch is: -AC_CHECK_DECLS([optarg, optind, opterr, optopt, environ],[],[][ +AC_CHECK_DECLS([optarg, optind, opterr, optopt, environ],[],[],[ on the file cf/roken-frag.m4 That is purely a syntax change and makes absolutely no change to the final package. I realize that this is an edge case and will never be a recommended practice, so I will happily accept if people want to say no to this. Allan
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:05 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Hi,
The current heimdal package does not build due to an autoconf update (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16015). I have a patch that can be applied to fix that but I do not particularly want to rebuild given it does not affect the actual package. It is also a bit of a waste of time applying the patch only to trunk as a new heimdal release will occur before any rebuild is likely to be needed.
Can I apply the patch and archrelease core-{i686,x86_64} or would that require a sign-off?
As long as you don't touch the binary package, there's no reason to signoff. The package doesn't build at this moment, and if it's still broken after your fix, nothing has changed. The signoff procedure is because you don't want your binary pkg to screw up systems.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
Jan de Groot