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

Re: Automake packages



On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:03:04PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > I think you have let one too many people who have taken leave of their
> > senses get to you with these packages already.  I have yet to see a
> > package which ran with 1.5 that does not run with 1.6 (and I've been
> > looking for them!)
> 
> Well as a mathematics professor I had once said, "Examples do not
> constitute a proof". Have you asked the automake developers about
> this? No offense, but they would know better then you. 

I've read the changelogs.  The GNU people are nothing if not careful about
changelogging their changes.


> > I get to choose being able to RTFM _OR_ being able to compile .... just
> > about every package out there.  Not a good choice, please make the
> > packages not conflict in this manner.  Especially it would be good if you
> > could make both sets of docs installable at the same time.  I'd much
> > rather have automake 1.4's docs than automake 1.4, since that will tell me
> > what I need to make sure my scripts are compatible backward and
> > forward.
> 
> I am not happy with this solution either. But the automake upstream
> packages it this way, ie their info files are not versioned. I sent a
> mail to their mailing list about this issue, but received no
> response. I'm always reluctant to really hack up upstream's way of
> doing things. My knowledge of info is not incredible, but I believe
> doing this sanely is non-trivial.

Perhaps whoever did it for autoconf can help?  That might have been aj I
think.


> Well I always planned to provide alternatives on 'automake', I just
> thought it was much more important to get these packages in and sane,
> and then add that.

Then why hold off on doing this?  The packages are basically not very
useful to software developers until that's done.


> I don't think anyone is saying that fixing this would be a bad
> thing. They're just wary of a lot of breakage, which I think is
> smart. Caution is the better part of valor. 

I don't disagree.  I believe 1.4 should be what you get when you ask for
automake by default - this isn't a question of compatibility as that 1.6
is still new software and people may prefer to stick with what they know
works until they know that the new version also works.  The new version
needs to be readily available for the more adventurous to work on, though.

The problem is that your current packages are simply not useful for ever
making automake1.6 not an experimental thing, and I think they should be
fixed.  I can't help immediately with the info stuff, but if nobody else
can either, I'll figure it out.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>       My opinions are always right
 
<kira> Ada, the only language written to milspec.
<Mikster> <shudder>

Attachment: pgpFhrX3ynX3o.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: