Hey Steve :) * Steve M. Robbins (steven.robbins@videotron.ca) wrote: > Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> writes > > > > 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.] > > The reason that it is the other way around was mainly to avoid lots of > breakage during the woody freeze. Since woody is now frozen, we ought > to be able to reverse the practice now. That's a nice idea, but it means that things that depend on "automake" could break the next time a new version of automake is released. I think the versioned binaries approach automake is taking, a package called automake1.X makes more sense. It would be nice to rename the automake package automake1.4 though. Would this piss people off who depend on automake? Or should I make an empty automake package that depends on automake1.4 for now, and later on depend on automake1.6 when people have changed dependencies properly. > > > Kevin (the current automake maintainer) seems unresponsive. Should I > > NMU them for now, or actually take them over? > > You might want to give Kevin a reasonable amount of time to respond. > But it would be really nice to have automake maintained in a timely > fashion, whoever does it. According to other people he has already not answered email queries for a number of weeks. But yes, I am reluctant to -- 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:
pgpoV6GdwETvr.pgp
Description: PGP signature