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

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.


dancer@debian.org  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
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+ 

Reply to: