Re: Autoconf 2.50
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> immo vero scripsit
> > I would suggest reverting "autoconf" to be the compatibility
> > version, and applications which work with autoconf-2.50
> > can build-depend upon it, after being verified as such.
>
> 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 don't think it would make things any faster if we just break everything.
> 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.
Okay, it's already a serious bug. The deadline has already passed.
That's the current situation.
> 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.
That would be a good idea, and I would hope this could happen.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE 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------
Reply to: