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

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

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:47:11 -0700
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> wrote:

> > I had an impression that newer version of automake required 
> > newer version of autoconf, which was nowhere near compatible.
> It's compatibile for most things.  There are a few thou-shalt-nots which
> cause the new version to be broken, but they're easily fixed in almost all
> cases.  They just require someone to actually do the fixing.

"Compatible for most things" and "it can be fixed up manually"
is not good enough :P

Really, a real solution would be to fixing things which build-depend on 
"automake" to depend on "automake1.6" or "automake1.4" or whatever.

Not dumping automake1.6 to be "automake".

a) Dumping automake1.6 to be automake will require:

1. autobuilders (or me) noticing the problem 
2. autobuilders (or me)  filing bugs on individual packages
3. maintainers, or QA people (or me) fixing and uploading the package

b) Changing the individual packages to build-depend on automake1.6 or 
automake1.4 will require:

1. maintainers, or QA people (or you??)  fixing and uploading the package

When "automake" is pulled away, packages which still depend 
upon automake should be obvious in b, while it won't be obvious 
at all in a.

a. is a more convoluted way of fixing the problem at hand.
b. is better in that it costs less for Debian Project as a whole, in total.

Note that most packages won't be autobuilt unless some crazy
fanatic starts rebuilding the whole archive for the fun of it.
Which makes solution a less attractive.


dancer@debian.org  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: