FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-16-2011, 02:20 AM
Eric Dorland
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

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 ship the generated Makefile.in's in
the diff.gz. You will never have to deal with these transition
problems again.

2. Upgrade to the latest version of automake, automake1.11, to stave
off obsolescence.

3. Using dh-autoreconf.

In a couple of weeks I will be filing wishlist bugs with patches to
remove the automake1.7. Probably about a month after that I will start
NMUing any packages who haven't acted on the bugs. Then I will ask for
automake1.7's removal. Thanks in advance for your help.


W. Martin Borgert <debacle@debian.org>
snacc
snacc (U)

Jan-Michael Brummer <jan.brummer@tabos.org>
isdnutils (U)

Debian Accessibility Team <debian-accessibility@lists.debian.org>
dots

Debian Games Team <pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
burgerspace
kobodeluxe

Debian Lustre Packaging team
<pkg-lustre-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
lustre

Debian Maemo Maintainers
<pkg-maemo-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
hildon-theme-tools

Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>
quantlib

Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
libtextcat

Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
apachetop
quiteinsanegimpplugin

Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org>
kobodeluxe (U)

Nočl Köthe <noel@debian.org>
lustre (U)

Jonny Lamb <jonny@debian.org>
hildon-theme-tools (U)

Rolf Leggewie <foss@rolf.leggewie.biz>
isdnutils

John Lines <john@paladyn.org>
plptools

Loic Minier <lool@dooz.org>
hildon-theme-tools (U)

Masahito Omote <omote@debian.org>
sary

Michael Piefel <piefel@debian.org>
snacc (U)

Ari Pollak <ari@debian.org>
libsdl-sound1.2

Tomas Pospisek <tpo_deb@sourcepole.ch>
mailsync

Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org>
dots (U)

Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
hildon-theme-tools (U)

Patrick Winnertz <winnie@debian.org>
lustre (U)


--
Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
 
Old 10-16-2011, 03:30 AM
Paul Wise
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

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 <packages@qa.debian.org>
> apachetop

Made a QA upload of this.

> quiteinsanegimpplugin

Probably this can be removed since it is dead upstream and xsane seems
to have a GIMP plugin.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKTje6GvAk35gObCk=8rU-ntfXKMFnETwioXyQfNa1mxULgwoA@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GvAk35gObCk=8rU-ntfXKMFnETwioXyQfNa1mxULgwoA@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 10-16-2011, 05:30 AM
Eric Dorland
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

* Paul Wise (pabs@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 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?

> > Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
> > apachetop
>
> Made a QA upload of this.

Thanks!

> > quiteinsanegimpplugin
>
> Probably this can be removed since it is dead upstream and xsane seems
> to have a GIMP plugin.
>

--
Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
 
Old 10-16-2011, 06:59 PM
Rene Engelhard
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:20:36PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
> 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 automake1.7).

Grüße/Regards,

René
--
.'`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111016185944.GC29363@rene-engelhard.de">http://lists.debian.org/20111016185944.GC29363@rene-engelhard.de
 
Old 10-16-2011, 07:47 PM
Josh Triplett
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Paul Wise (pabs@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 automake 1.4 (from 1999) in particular have more software stuck
on it? I haven't managed to find any information about its quirks that
explains why old software wants 1.4 in particular.

- Josh Triplett


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111016194735.GA11417@leaf">http://lists.debian.org/20111016194735.GA11417@leaf
 
Old 10-16-2011, 09:59 PM
Eric Dorland
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

* Josh Triplett (josh@joshtriplett.org) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Paul Wise (pabs@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 automake 1.4 (from 1999) in particular have more software stuck
> on it? I haven't managed to find any information about its quirks that
> explains why old software wants 1.4 in particular.

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 by automake 1.4
on the web, versus 113,000 generated by automake 1.6 and later.

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.

PS Searches I used:

http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=%22Makefile.in%20generated%20automatically%20by %20automake%22%20-1.2%20-1.3%20-1.5%20file:Makefile.in&type=cs
http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/&q=%22Makefile.in%20generated%20by%20automake%22%2 0file:Makefile.in&type=cs

> - Josh Triplett
>
>

--
Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
 
Old 10-16-2011, 11:09 PM
Michael Biebl
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

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 should be advocating the usage of automake 1.4 by shipping it
in out next stable release. When all r-deps are fixed I'd prefer dropping it.
In case you need automake 1.4, one can still grab it from squeeze or snapshots.d.o

Cheers,
Michael


--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
 
Old 10-17-2011, 12:04 PM
Ian Jackson
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

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 by automake 1.4
> on the web, versus 113,000 generated by automake 1.6 and later.

This is a good reason to keep 1.4, at least for now and perhaps
indefinitely.

Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7"):
> I don't think we should be advocating the usage of automake 1.4 by
> shipping it in out next stable release. [...]

Shipping an older version of a tool like automake is not "advocating
[its] usage". It's making life less difficult for people who still
need it.

I don't imagine it takes much maintenance but of course I'm not saying
that someone else ought to do the work. If the existing maintainer
wants to get rid of automake1.4, I would be happy to take it over to
keep it in the archive.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20124.6605.27897.220159@chiark.greenend.org.uk">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20124.6605.27897.220159@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 
Old 11-13-2011, 05:00 AM
Eric Dorland
 
Default Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7

* Ian Jackson (ijackson@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 code
> > search, there are about 36,800 Makefile.in's generated by automake 1.4
> > on the web, versus 113,000 generated by automake 1.6 and later.
>
> This is a good reason to keep 1.4, at least for now and perhaps
> indefinitely.
>
> Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7"):
> > I don't think we should be advocating the usage of automake 1.4 by
> > shipping it in out next stable release. [...]
>
> Shipping an older version of a tool like automake is not "advocating
> [its] usage". It's making life less difficult for people who still
> need it.
>
> I don't imagine it takes much maintenance but of course I'm not saying
> that someone else ought to do the work. If the existing maintainer
> wants to get rid of automake1.4, I would be happy to take it over to
> keep it in the archive.

I'm happy to keep maintaining automake1.4 and I agree it should stay
in the archive, at least until wheezy is released.

> Ian.
>
>

--
Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:59 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org