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

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



On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 12:13:26AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 03:03:21PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > 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
> Well we have this little problem you see...
> We can't control upstream.  They fucked up, badly.  

But we can control what we do, and we are meant to ensure that upstream's
fuckups don't affect either us or our users, where such a thing is
possible.

The latter is clearly possible here: avoid making automake1.5 or
automake1.6 be what you get when you say "apt-get install automake", and
ensure that when you've got automake 1.4 installed, you don't accidently
get a different version when you expect automake 1.4.

That's all that *matters*, everything else -- like making it obvious which
automake should be installed for users to develop with, or getting all
our packages to build with a single version of automake -- is just glitz.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpE5EGZHCUjG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: