[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for fixing automake (was Re: State of automake packages)



* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:47:11 -0700
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> wrote:
> 
> > > I had an impression that newer version of automake required 
> > > newer version of autoconf, which was nowhere near compatible.
> > 
> > It's compatibile for most things.  There are a few thou-shalt-nots which
> > cause the new version to be broken, but they're easily fixed in almost all
> > cases.  They just require someone to actually do the fixing.
> 
> "Compatible for most things" and "it can be fixed up manually"
> is not good enough :P
> 
> Really, a real solution would be to fixing things which build-depend on 
> "automake" to depend on "automake1.6" or "automake1.4" or whatever.
> 
> Not dumping automake1.6 to be "automake".

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying that /usr/bin/automake
should be an alternative provided by the various automake
packages. The automake 1.4 package would have the highest priority for
now for the autobuilders.
 
> a) Dumping automake1.6 to be automake will require:
> 
> 1. autobuilders (or me) noticing the problem 
> 2. autobuilders (or me)  filing bugs on individual packages
> 3. maintainers, or QA people (or me) fixing and uploading the package
> 

Again, i'm not suggesting this.

> b) Changing the individual packages to build-depend on automake1.6 or 
> automake1.4 will require:
> 
> 1. maintainers, or QA people (or you??)  fixing and uploading the package
> 
> 
> When "automake" is pulled away, packages which still depend 
> upon automake should be obvious in b, while it won't be obvious 
> at all in a.
> 
> a. is a more convoluted way of fixing the problem at hand.
> b. is better in that it costs less for Debian Project as a whole, in total.
> 

I agree, a. is the better solution.
 
> 
> Note that most packages won't be autobuilt unless some crazy
> fanatic starts rebuilding the whole archive for the fun of it.
> Which makes solution a less attractive.
> 
> 
> regards,
> 	junichi
> 
> 

-- 
Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Attachment: pgp73wYRR4JbI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: