Re: Automake 2.50 migration strategy, as implemented
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 05:14:15PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 04:27:41PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 04:09:04PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > I am currently uploading the new version of autoconf and
> > > autoconf2.13. These attempt to automatically select the desired
> > > version of Autoconf utilities at the time they are run. In my
> > > simple tests, they work well. We'll see how they do in practice,
> > > but I suspect that, except for possible minor bugs in the
> > > wrappers, they will work well there too.
> > >
> > > All that autobuilder maintainers, etc., should need to do, is to
> > > make sure that they install autoconf2.13 as well as the new
> > > autoconf. This should not be challenging because the new
> > > autoconf Recommends: autoconf2.13 for now. (I intend to demote
> > > the recommendation to a suggestion, then remove it, over the next
> > > year or so, as it gradually becomes less necessary.)
> > However, installing autoconf negates having a clean chroot for the
> > autobuilders. This means that packages with missing build-deps on
> > autoconf will succeed, even though they are technically broken.
> > I suggest making that recommends a depends for now.
> Why wouldn't you just special-case autoconf in the autobuilder
Oh sure, we could special case that, and a million other things. It's
not as if we work hard enough as it is. I mean going through several
hundred failed builds every month isn't enough to do.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but asking the autobuilders to special case a
package is just not the way to go.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- email@example.com '