Re: Bug#598044: ITP: autoconf-dickey -- automatic configure script builder (Thomas Dickey's version)
>>> Yet another autoconf version, as if the four that we already have in the
>>> archive weren't enough. :-( But it is needed for ncurses if we ever
>>> need to patch configure.in, see #580190.
>> And its not possible to fixup the idiot who uses an own autoconf
>> version?
> Considering that his dispute with the GNU Autoconf maintainers
> originates in the last millennium and he's been maintaining his patches
> for twelve years or so, the answer is: no, that is not possible.
*sigh*
>> Or if that doesn't work, replace the shit in his source by something that
>> works with all the lot we already have?
> Given that
> - Thomas makes extensive use of the features that he introduced in
> his patched autoconf version and that were rejected by the GNU
> maintainers;
> - his fork is based on a very old autoconf version (2.52) that we don't
> have, and I have no idea what would break if we patch out the
> incompatible macros and use either autoconf2.59 or autoconf2.13;
> - ncurses' configure.in changes very frequently (patches for ncurses are
> released weekly, and about every second-third patch touches
> configure.in);
> this would be a maintenance nightmare. An autoconf wizard that wants to
> tackle this task is welcome to join the ncurses team and try, but I'm
> not going to do that. That hypothetical wizard should also have a look
> at xterm, lynx-cur and possibly other packages that are maintained by
> Thomas Dickey to bring them in line with Policy §2.2.1.
Sounds like a task to get rid of software from that guy wouldnt be all
to bad one. Ohwell.
--
bye, Joerg
SUSE = Soll Unix Sein, Eigentlich.
Reply to: