Re: Bug#733045: debhelper: Can debhelper make autotools-dev updating default behaviour?
Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> writes:
> ❦ 26 décembre 2013 01:04 CET, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> :
>> It is true that compatibility is sometimes less than ideal, but
>> brushing the problem under the carpet just means that somebody gets to
>> discover this when they're in a hurry trying to fix some unrelated
>> problem years later, when the change in the autotools has been largely
>> forgotten about, rather than it being fixed in a timely fashion.
> Urgent updates, like security issues, seldomly need to patch the build
> system. For one hour spent by the maintainer to fix the build system to
> be able to build with a more recent version of automake or a more
> ancient version of automake, how much time is saved by a third-party
> person? Most of the time, none.
Well, the build system is going to need to get updated to the newer
version of automake eventually, yes? Otherwise, you end up having to keep
separately-installed obsolete copies of Automake around to maintain the
source. The Debian automake package maintainer isn't going to want to
keep every version in the archive forever.
There therefore isn't any *global* savings of time in the long run apart
from the time savings from batching upgrades (upgrading across several
versions of Automake at once). Of course, it may change the balance of
the work between the Debian package maintainer and upstream.
> We don't need to put more burden on maintainers. It is better to really
> build from sources and it is good if you spend time on it, but IMO, we
> can't afford to make this a rule.
I'm similarly a bit dubious about making it a rule, mostly because we
already put substantial up-front burdens in the way of someone packaging a
new piece of software, and I think one of the best ways to get people
involved in Debian is to help them get something they're interested in
using into the archive. That said, I think we're accumulating technical
debt every time we accept something that relies on an obsolete version of
Automake, so I would encourage people to try to port their packages.
I'm upstream for a whole ton of stuff that uses Automake, and I've almost
never had any problems with newer versions that took more than a few
minutes to fix. My sense from following the Automake development list is
that the people who run into a lot of upgrade issues are *mostly*
(although not always) using rather obscure corners of Automake and doing
things in fancy or non-standard ways, which makes them more vulnerable to
problems during upgrades.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: