On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:44 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > * Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I notice that with a recent change to automake-1.9 you have adjusted the > > priorities so that 1.9 is the default, instead of 1.4. However this > > still does not solve many of the problems people have had in Ubuntu, so > > we've proposed a specification to transition the archive to the newest > > Automake and drop 1.4. > > > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutomakeTransition > > > As the Debian maintainer, we'd really appreciate your opinion on this; > > especially as there are several options listed which we have yet to > > choose between. > > Looking at the wiki page, you have some good ideas there. From > Debian's perspective I think option 3 is a non-starter. Even if we > banish all automake 1.4 using packages from the distro there will > still be old code out there that will want it. But it is fairly > deprecated garbage at this point, so its use should be discouraged. > I agree that Option #3 is probably not desirable, it was put there for completeness.
> Here's what I believe would make the most sense: > Have added this to the wiki as Option 2b. > For this to happen in Debian anything depending on automake would need > to be fixed. As of yesterday, 79 packages are still build depending on > "automake" by my reckoning. Most of these are likely trivial to > fix. > This is certainly somewhere Ubuntu can help; we've had good results in the past by trialling migrations before Debian and providing them all the patches they need. All of the 79 packages would receive patches which have already been shipped in a released distribution, which makes it somewhat easier for people to apply them. It also makes it easier for you to change things in Debian because you can say "all packages are changed or have patches in the BTS" and then it's their fault if they brake. Scott -- Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
