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

Re: Automake 2.50 migration strategy, as implemented

On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:35:34AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Ben C,
> I don't find the sarcasm very convincing.  
> I did not suggest special-casing a million things.
> I do think it is legitimate to consider the relative merits of the
> various options when making a decision.

But if I special case autoconf, then who knows what precedence that will
set. It's not something I want to fathom. Also, the case where the
autobuilders will build things in a different environment than a normal
user, or the maintainer would, is not acceptable. The autobuilders may
be able to build it, but a normal user would have to know some secret
(installing autoconf2.13) to get it to rebuild. That's not acceptible at
all. In fact, it violates policy.

> Which of the three options causes the least total inconvenience?
> Well, that depends on how you weight the relative inconvenience.
> However, I'd wager that the group affected by option #2 is the
> smallest of the three groups, while the group affected by option #3 is
> by far the largest.

IMO, you should either accept the inconvenience and create an autoconf
that is version 2.13, and an autoconf2.5 package. Or, do as you say, but
file bugs on packages that require a dep on autoconf2.13. Do not ask for
autobuilders to special case things. Just think of it as "the
autobuilders are mindless machines that try to replicate exactly what
the maintainer does" and not "smart machines that try to make up for
lacking elsewhere".

FYI, I will not special case this on the sparc buildd. So either
autoconf will get bugs filed for the failed builds, or the packages that
fail will get bugs. You can't file a bug on the autobuilder for not
special casing a crappy setup, so you'll be stuck anyway.


/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: