* Steve M. Robbins (steven.robbins@videotron.ca) wrote: > 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. > > or > > 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. Right, but solution (a) may break things, but solution (b) will not. > 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. I guess it basically boils down to are we willing to break things a little now and force people to fix it, go through all the work of figuring out what packages are broken and filing bugs/doing NMU's, or just leave it alone for now and hopefully maintainers will fix it themselves. I know Uekawa-san will disagree with the first solution, but does anyone else think its a good or bad idea? -- Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgp3sw34_o20a.pgp
Description: PGP signature