On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:16:17AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 16:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes: > > > On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 13:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> It doesn't help that there are something like four different, mutually > > >> incompatible versions of Automake all in active use by various > > >> packages. > > > Can you please illustrate an example of backwards incompatibility? That > > > would be a bug that needs to be fixed. > > Well, notice that we have five different versions of Automake in Debian. > > If Automake were fully backward-compatible, we would only have one or two > > versions; those other versions are still present for good reason. > Except nobody can actually find an example of the good reason anymore, > which leads me to suspect it's actually bogus. Automake 1.6 through 1.9 > are largely interchangeable. I personally keep 1.4 and 1.9 installed, > and have no problems. As far as automake versions that should be packaged are concerned, I agree with you here. One of the more common failure cases I've seen in packages that don't use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE, though, is the fact that the macros automake inserts with aclocal aren't compatible between minor versions, which causes build failures if the patch-derived aclocal.m4, configure, and Makefile.in aren't *all* regenned at build time. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature