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

Re: Renaming of automake to automake1.4



On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:12:59AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > As a final suggestion, if there are really that many Makefile.am's in
> > the world that will only work with specific versions of automake,
> > perhaps we shouldn't have a virtual package at all.  The existence of a
> > virtual package implies a degree of interchangeability among the
> > packages that provide it.  If that's just not the case with automake, we
> > shouldn't try to advertise it.
> 
> That is a good point. They are really all trying to do the same thing
> so I think the virtual package makes sense, at least to let other
> packages recommend or suggest automake packages.

I do not understand.  You appear to be both agreeing with me and
contradicting me.

I'm saying that a virtual package name for automake* is only useful only
if they truly are mostly interchangeable.

There seems to be strong evidence that they aren't, and therefore we
should probably not have a virtual package for them.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      "To be is to do"   -- Plato
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      "To do is to be"   -- Aristotle
branden@debian.org                 |      "Do be do be do"   -- Sinatra
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpLC6ZLIJ4fC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: