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

Re: State of automake packages

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 09:58:47PM +0100, Scott James Remnant 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.

Well, yes... I know what happened when the automake package switched to
1.5, but I guess we can't stick with automake 1.4 forever...

> 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.

That isn't true for all cases. Just to put an example, nano does well
with both 1.4 and 1.5.

My concern, in any case isn't incompatibility problems in automake
releases. If we need to use an "automake1.6" package, I'd welcome it
too. The problem is the bad state of these pacakges. Even 1.4 isn't up
to the last release (1.4-p5, #127347).

People *need* automake1.6, it's blocking other packages from being

I could create such source package, but I don't know if assigning it to
Kevin would be nice...

Jordi Mallach Pérez || jordi@pusa.informat.uv.es || Rediscovering Freedom,
   aka Oskuro in    || jordi@sindominio.net      || Using Debian GNU/Linux
 Reinos de Leyenda  || jordi@debian.org          || http://www.debian.org/

http://sindominio.net  GnuPG public information:      pub  1024D/917A225E 
telnet pusa.uv.es 23   73ED 4244 FD43 5886 20AC  2644 2584 94BA 917A 225E

Attachment: pgpKeacLMiwxp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: