Re: Proposal for fixing automake (was Re: State of automake packages)
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 03:58:45PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Joseph Carter (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > 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.
Count me too.
> I certainly have enough bandwidth, but how would i find all the
> packages that build-depend on automake?
Neil Spring did this job months ago, see
You might also have a look at the whole thread
Convince Debian developers to read
and avoid build dependencies against auto* tools would also be nice.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org