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

Re: State of automake packages



Well 1.6 actually takes these incompatibilities into account and
actually provides a binary called automake-1.6 and has other
mechanisms to smooth these API changes in the future. Anyway, it
wouldn't be too difficult to package automake1.6 alongside the other
two packages. I volunteer unless Kevin Dalley pipes up and says he
wants to do it. 

* Ivo Timmermans (ivo@o2w.nl) wrote:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 20:12, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > > What's up with the automake packages?
> > > 
> > The initial problem at least is that "compatible" is not a word most
> > people choose to describe automake 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
> 
> That's not really the point.  Currently there are two automake
> packages, automake (version 1.4) and automake1.5.  automake 1.6 has
> been available for some time, but hasn't been uploaded into sid yet.
> One of my packages requires it, which is keeping some other packages
> out of sid.
> 
> > If an application was written to use automake 1.4 or before, automake
> > 1.4 is the latest version of automake you can use to generate the
> > Makefile.ins for it.  This is the majority of applications, and will
> > probably remain so for quite some time.
> 
> Maybe, but some packages do require 1.5 or 1.6.
> 
> 
> 	Ivo
> 

-- 
Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS 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+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Attachment: pgpZ6KeV3uTXE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: