Re: should automake1.6 "provide" automake?
* Junichi Uekawa (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:24:59 -0400
> Eric Dorland <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> I have an impression that automake1.6 is really non-compatible with automake1.5
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE format has changed between 1.5 and 1.6
If you mean the fact that AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE takes a new parameter, i
believe it's optional, so it does not break anything.
Eric Dorland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: email@example.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
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------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com