Re: Autoconf 2.50
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 12:11:39AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Denis Barbier <email@example.com> immo vero scripsit
> > This problem only demonstrates that many Debian packages are beta
> > software, which is a bad thing, and i strongly disagree with your
> > suggestion. An easy solution is as i said to ship files generated by
> > autoconf 2.13 and drop this Build-Depends dependency. This will also
> > ease compiling sources on any distribution (stable/testing/unstable).
> What is beta and what is not beta does not depend upon the version
> numbering magic only. The most important part is the stability of the
i mostly agree, the sentence about stability was a bad idea ;)
What i had in mind is that there are no problems with tarballs released
by upstream authors, and if you need to change some maintainer-specific
(in the auto* sense) files, then rebuilding everything with the same
versions of these tools is the only way to prevent problems.
> We have versioned libraries, why don't we keep versioned binaries too?
There are some, and i agree it would be nice to have both autoconf 2.13
and 2.50, but if Ben prefer leaving 2.13 behind, it would not hurt me
> Especially when so many things seem to start breaking.
This is where we disagree, the problem does not come from autoconf, but
from Debian developers who believed that autoconf will never change.
I prefer forcing them to fix their packages (which is quite