Re: automake 1.5
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 03:03:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > So, it seems likely that we need automake 1.4 uploaded again. There
> > are two ways we can do this reasonable, either as automake 1:1.4 (ie,
> > automake.deb, with an epoch to make sure 1.5 is replaced by the older
> > version), or as automake1.4. Doing the former will work with the minimum
> > of fuss, and, presumably, only leave a handful of packages broken. Doing
> > the latter will require a "Provides: automake" so that the build-depends
> > are remotely satisfied, but even that won't necessarily be enough to
> > ensure the autobuilders use automake 1.4 instead of automake 1.5 for
> > the packages that need it.
> >
> > I'd be inclined towards adding the epoch, and just reuploading the older
> > version, and doing this "right" after woody.
> >
> > Comments? Problems with the above? Other issues?
>
> I would like to suggest doing this like the autoconf issue was resolved.
> E.g. make automake package provide a automake1.5 binary, depend on
> automake1.4 which provides a automake1.4 binary and have a automake script
> which defaults to running the /old/ automake. This way we don't have
> another useless epoch and we have the current automake for development.
I suggest rather the system used for gcc 3.0, since there's no easy
way to make a magic wrapper for automake like there is for
autoconf. Things which need automake can then run automake-1.5
explicitly. The question of whether to epoch or not is a purely
aesthetic matter up to the maintainer, figuring out how to maintain
forward compatibility is his responsibility anyway.
(For those not familiar with the setup: gcc is an alternative which
maps to either gcc-2.95 or gcc-3.0, which are included in the relevant
packages. gcc-2.95 has a higher priority so is used unless it is not
installed, or the local system admin has overridden it)
The autoconf setup has caused problems before; the gcc one seems to be
working fine.
I would object to woody failing to include automake 1.5 in any form,
it would make it difficult to build things which depend on new
features it may include/bugs it fixes.
> Drawbacks: The old automake is automatically installed as well (hmm, it's
> for development, those machines tend to have enough disk space anyway).
I don't see any reason to install the new one on every system.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- http://www.debian.org/ | London, UK
Reply to: