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

Re: Autoconf 2.50

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> If it's done "just like that", it will take years before we start using
> anything other than 2.13. This is not acceptable.
> I'd suggest that a deadline (e.g. woody is released) is set by the autoconf
> maintainer, and after that deadline is past, he would unmercifuly bump up
> the 'default' autoconf up to whatever is the newest stable version. If a
> package breaks then, tough luck - it gets a serious bug.
> Meanwhile, giving us a autoconf-2.5 package that provides: autoconf and
> reverting the autoconf package to 2.13 would avoid the possibility of
> delaying woody, and still allow packages to be fixed for 2.5x in a steady
> pace.

I'd rather see 2.50 be the default (autoconf), and have an autoconf-2.13
package for people to build-depends on if they can't (or won't) update.

Then it's a conscious decision and explicit act to make a package use the old
version, and the default is to become updated.

The volume of serious bugs isn't that important if they're so easily fixed.
It'll give someone something to do at the next bug squishing party. ;)
Sam Couter          |   Internet Engineer   |   http://www.topic.com.au/
sam@topic.com.au    |   tSA Consulting      |
OpenPGP key ID:       DE89C75C,  available on key servers
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C

Attachment: pgpzQIv09TfHe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: