* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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.
I don't think Ubuntu should get all the fun :) I'm going to propose this mass bug filing and transition to the release team. Obviously I can't promise the release team will approve, but I'll get bugs filed and start working on patches for these issues. I'll propose the other changes I outlined and point out the Ubuntu proposals as well, and see what the general developer opinion of them is. > 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. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
