* 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:
pgpIjH6UGPuAn.pgp
Description: PGP signature