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

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



* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> immo vero scripsit:
> 
> > The first thing that needs to be done is to upgrade the 1.4 and 1.5
> > packages to their newer upstream versions to hopefully close some
> > bugs. They should be changed to conflict with each other, but not all
> > versions of automake. I think /usr/bin/automake should be an
> > alternative, with automake 1.4 having the highest priority.
> 
> Hmm.. it's not an alternative if it is not compatible.
> It's like bison and yacc, gpc and gcc.

Well to some degree they are compatible. I think a better analogy
would be the various vi clones. They all sort of do the same things,
but they are not necessarily compatible.
 
> They are alternative ways of doing one thing, but they are not
> necessarily compatible.
> 
> I don't see problems with having different packages conflicting 
> with each other.

Well the point is newer versions of automake do not need to conflict
with each other.

> 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: pgp5sqZYU1JgK.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: