* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote: > "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. Well only automake 1.4 and 1.5 conflict, 1.6 doesn't conflict with either of them. > > 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. > I agree... people should have a versioned depend on automake. > regards, > junichi > -- 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:
pgpLUWccJdmPD.pgp
Description: PGP signature