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

Re: should automake1.6 "provide" automake?

Eric writes:

> I've thought about this a lot as well, and unfortunately I agree
> with both of you :) It is extremely irritating that all the automake
> packages don't provide "automake". But the way things stand now
> packages depend on automake when they mean automake1.4,

We don't know that.  It is entirely possible that all the packages
that build-depend on automake really do build with automake 1.6.

Don't forget that we have been in this situation (with automake1.5
providing automake) since last October, and no bug has been filed
on 1.5 because of it.

> One then that I could do that hasn't been suggested yet is making
> another virtual package called "automaken" and have all the
> automakes provide that. When a package needs an unversioned
> dependency on automake then could just use that (similar to emacs'
> "emacsen"). Is this a better solution?

Apart from the unappealing aesthetics, this is not really different
from my proposed solution.  We could

a) have automake1.6 provide automake
   Ramifications: a package that build-depends on automake, but really wants
   automake1.4 must be modified to use a versioned depend.


b) have all automake packages provide "automaken"
   Ramifications: any package that depends on "any version of automake"
   must have its dependency modified.

Using solution (a) there *may* be packages that need modification.
Using solution (b) there *are* packages that need modification.

In any case, the fix is so trivial that you can just email me
the bug reports and I'll personally NMU all the packages that 
fail to build due to automake1.6 providing automake.


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

Reply to: