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

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



* Joseph Carter (knghtbrd@bluecherry.net) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:13:10AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > One possibility is to make "automake1.4.deb" be the only package that
> > > provides "automake", and then adjust the conflicts between automake
> > > 1.4 and automake 1.5 to ensure they don't get installed together if it
> > > breaks things. If we've got three versions of automake, which aren't
> > > particularly compatible, and which are all used widely, there's probably
> > > not that much value in trying to provide a "canonical" automake.deb.
> > 
> > Yes, but that seems like a bit of an inelegant solution, since it is
> > possible for a package to want any automake, not necessarily
> > automake1.4. It is possible to write Makefile.am's that are portable
> > across all the current versions. It would be nice if packages which
> > depend on automake could depend on the right version (eg. automake1.4
> > or automake1.5) if it really does depend on a specific version.
> 
> Any package I use (and therefore can test) which does not build with
> automake 1.5 or 1.6 in sid, I will be happy to download, fix, and send
> patches both to the Debian BTS and upstream if possible.  This goes for
> autoconf 2.5+ as well.

That would be great.
 
> If others are willing to do the same, I think it's a safe bet that we can
> move to 1.6 relatively easily.  I say relatively because some of the
> things that are no longer acceptable to the autoconf/automake people were
> needed to get certain unprovided features in a sane manner.  Programs
> which do anything like this are rare enough though that most people won't
> have any trouble.  The exceptions may take some texinfo reading or some
> person who is basically very comfortable with auto* voodoo, but I'm
> convinced we could make short work of it.

Again, this would be great, but rallying the troops to do this might
be hard.
 
> > > There's probably no need for a dummy package -- they're only really
> > > useful when you're splitting a package.
> > 
> > Yes, but it might be nice for someone to do apt-get install automake
> > and get a nice version of automake installed. I realize that's
> > somewhat low priority, but it would still be nice :)
> 
> First thing that needs to happen in order to get that is for someone with
> bandwidth and CPU to burn to set up an autobuilder and try building
> anything that needs automake with 1.5/1.6 and generate a list of failure
> cases.  Once we have that, this whole process gets simpler.

I certainly have enough bandwidth, but how would i find all the
packages that build-depend on automake?

> I don't have the bandwidth (56k shared by 5 machines just isn't at all
> sufficient!) but I have CPU enough to go about fixing the failure cases
> once they're known.
> 



-- 
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: pgp8T6uVsXV3D.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: