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

Re: The automake issue, and why crippling 1.6 is a bad plan

On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 21:29, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:01:59PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Remember: automake & autoconf should not be something that build
> > platforms need worry about - they're only for the maintainer who runs
> > them if he changes Makefile.am/configure.{in,ac} before generating the
> > diff.  The source package shouldn't *need* them (if it does, I'd
> > consider that a bug).
> Lots of packages need to make changes to configure.in, I have to make
> changes to the one in SDL, for example.
Yes, this isn't something the source package or build platform needs to
worry about.

If you make the changes to the configure.in, you (as the maintainer) run
autoconf yourself, the source package doesn't need to build-depend on

This means that we only need to make both automake1.4 and automake1.6
available in uncrippled form in Debian.  Which of the two get installed
and which gets called "automake" is a user choice - it's not something
that needs to be set in the distribution.

Personally I'd chose automake1.6 and autoconf2.5 to have the names by
default, simply because it might help promote people to move to the new
ones[1] rather than defaulting to the older ones.


[1] Ignoring religious views on how good they are, and the fact that 
    there isn't a copy of the goat book for them yet.
Scott James Remnant     Have you ever, ever felt like this?  Had strange
http://netsplit.com/      things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: