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

Bug#749647: marked as done (make-guile: make-guile or make-noguile?)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:39:57 +0200
with message-id <20200730103956.pbtrwx5z5vnl2vw7@percival.namespace.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#749647: make-guile: make-guile or make-noguile?
has caused the Debian Bug report #749647,
regarding make-guile: make-guile or make-noguile?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
749647: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=749647
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: make-guile
Version: 4.0-7
Severity: normal

Hi. This isn't a bug per se, but a question.

Currently we have a guile-less 'make' package as part of build-essential
and a guile-ful 'make-noguile'.

What would you think about switching the names around? So you'd have
build-essential depend on 'make-noguile', and a plain 'make' package
providing a guile-ful make?

This would keep the closure of build-essential as it is now, but the
guile support wouldn't be delegated to a second-class status. I can
imagine that the guile support would be under-utilized simply because
'apt-get install make' doesn't pull it in.

Currently 'make-guile' does Provide 'make', but that isn't enough. The
current situation optimizes for the needs of the bootstrappers, and
while those are important, I don't think this is the primary use of make
in Debian.

Thanks!
dima

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
* Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@golden-gryphon.com> [200730 10:37]:
> reassign 749647 general
> 
> On Wed, May 28 2014, Dima Kogan wrote:
[...]
> 
> > Currently 'make-guile' does Provide 'make', but that isn't enough. The
> > current situation optimizes for the needs of the bootstrappers, and
> > while those are important, I don't think this is the primary use of make
> > in Debian.
> 
>         That is a useful discussion to have. However, this is not the
>  place to have this discussion, since the bug list of make-guile has
>  little to no visibility. Reassigning to general to get wider
>  distribution. 

As this didn't trigger a useful discussion either in the (package:)
general bug, or on debian-devel for ~5 years, it appears there is not
enough interest in making these changes. Keeping the bug around
isn't going to help, so I'm taking the liberty to close it.

FD could be taken elsewhere.

Best,
Chris

--- End Message ---
Reply to: