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

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

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

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+ 

Attachment: pgp_gzDtGz6QM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: