On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 08:24:44PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I like to think that our promise that main is closed with respect to
> building tools implies, at least morally,
Oh dear. There are lots of "moral" things we can be done, lots of which
are more important than this. Hopefully we can still avoid getting too
puritanical on this issue.
> Therefore, I hold that if we remove libtool1.4, then it becomes a bug
> if the internal configuration infrastructure in a package cannot be
> rebuilt without having libtool1.4 installed.
That's what build-depends are for. If you want to go through packages
and work on ensuring that current versions of libtool can be used to
re-libtoolize them, that's fine and you should feel very free, of course.
> I'm not ready to argue
> that it would be an RC bug, but I'm quite convinced it should be a bug
> unless the configure.in needs more than a few very obvious changes to
> port.
I don't think it's a reportable bug -- if you make one change (updating
automake.in or whatever, or using X library functions), and things
stop working because you haven't made another change (updating to a new
libtool, or including the right headers respectively), well, that's really
your problem. Not everything can be made trivially easy for everyone.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature