* Ian Jackson (ijack...@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 c
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
Hi!
Am 16.10.2011 23:59, schrieb Eric Dorland:
>
> Now clearly we don't need automake 1.4 for Debian's sake, but some
> users might still be interested in it for some people to compile old
> pieces of software. If there's no such interest, then I have no
> problems dropping it.
I don't think we
* Josh Triplett (j...@joshtriplett.org) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) wrote:
> > > Shouldn't automake1.4 be first in the queue?
> >
> > We could do automake1.4. I hesitate because there may still be older
> > software out there that wants automake 1.4's particular
Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) wrote:
> > Shouldn't automake1.4 be first in the queue?
>
> We could do automake1.4. I hesitate because there may still be older
> software out there that wants automake 1.4's particular set of
> quirks. What do other people think?
Why does auto
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:20:36PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Rene Engelhard
>libtextcat
Will not be done.
I'll not change the build of a dead package (which already would be
replaced with the libexttextcat source package if #644287 was fixed -
which doesn't have a build-dependency on aut
* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> > As has become custom, it's time for removal of another old automake
> > version. This round it's automake 1.7's turn.
>
> Shouldn't automake1.4 be first in the queue?
We could do automake1.4. I hes
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> As has become custom, it's time for removal of another old automake
> version. This round it's automake 1.7's turn.
Shouldn't automake1.4 be first in the queue?
> Debian QA Group
> apachetop
Made a QA upload of this.
> quiteinsanegimpp
As has become custom, it's time for removal of another old automake
version. This round it's automake 1.7's turn.
Below is a list of packages that build depend on
automake1.7. Please fix them by:
1. Not build depending on automake in the first place. It may be
completely unnecessary, or you can
9 matches
Mail list logo
