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

Re: Proposal for fixing automake (was Re: State of automake packages)

"Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> immo vero scripsit:

> > What do people think? If there's no serious objections, I'll upload
> > automake1.6 and start fixing 1.4 and 1.5 once its uploaded.
> If feasible, my preference would be that the package "automake"
> contains the latest version (i.e. 1.6).  The older version could be
> stuck in "automake1.4", if need be.  [I wonder whether 1.5 is even
> needed at this point.]

My preference would be that package automake be a virtual package
that is provided and conflicted by automakex.x.

These automake versions provide the interface expected by the user
as an automake program, but are not really completely compatible.

It's better than the current situation of having random packages
depending on "automake" and being broken with the latest version
of automake.


dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: