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

Re: Renaming of automake to automake1.4

* Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) wrote:
> 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's a valid concern, but I disagree. 
> I'm saying that a virtual package name for automake* is only useful only
> if they truly are mostly interchangeable.

I guess it depends on what you mean by interchangeable. They are all
compatible to some degree and perform the same sort of task. I guess
its a bit like the mail-transport-agent, they all perform the same
sort of task (delivering mail) but they aren't compatible with
each other (different features, different configs).

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

What do others think? Is this virtual package useful, or pointless?

Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

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+ 

Attachment: pgpUkPt93EOph.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: