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

Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7 [and 1 more messages]

* Ian Jackson (ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes ("Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7"):
> > The versions after 1.4 were where backwards-incompatible changes
> > started showing up. As a very unscientific census using google code
> > search, there are about 36,800 Makefile.in's generated by automake 1.4
> > on the web, versus 113,000 generated by automake 1.6 and later.
> This is a good reason to keep 1.4, at least for now and perhaps
> indefinitely.
> Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7"):
> > I don't think we should be advocating the usage of automake 1.4 by
> > shipping it in out next stable release. [...]
> Shipping an older version of a tool like automake is not "advocating
> [its] usage".  It's making life less difficult for people who still
> need it.
> I don't imagine it takes much maintenance but of course I'm not saying
> that someone else ought to do the work.  If the existing maintainer
> wants to get rid of automake1.4, I would be happy to take it over to
> keep it in the archive.

I'm happy to keep maintaining automake1.4 and I agree it should stay
in the archive, at least until wheezy is released.
> Ian.

Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: