Re: Removal of libtool1.4
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> 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.
So providing the tools users need to rebuild our software from source
is "puritanical"? Sheesh.
> > 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.
As far as I know, build-depends are for the things buildds need to
have installed. Am I wrong?
> 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
I'm saying that libtool1.4 should not be gratuitously removed from the
archive until someone has done this, so that we are sure that we still
ship all the tools needed to build our OS.
> 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.
Remark that the first change may well be limited to
touch configure.in
If that makes things break (and, because of libtool1.4 being gone, it
is not possible to prevent the breakage by having the right packages
installed), then I don't see how it can *not* be a bug.
--
Henning Makholm Set your feet free!
Reply to: