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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-05-2008, 06:33 PM
"Alan"
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

> I'm not sure I can go along with this. I'm sure we'd all agree that
> there's no point in carrying old versions of various pieces of
> software for no reason, but we shouldn't drop them all just because
> they're not current. Instead we should (periodically) evaluate why we
> have those in the distro and decide if we want to continue to have
> them. So autoconf213 is needed for firefox development. That's
> certainly a valid reason, and it should be documented somewhere (in
> the autoconf213 spec, maybe) so that we won't forget next year when
> someone again asks why we still have autoconf213 around.
>
> Perhaps we can port a few packages over to a recent automake and get
> rid of some of the old versions. It certainly wouldn't be a bad
> thing.

I have a bit of a problem with this.

I build a fair amount of software that is not in the repository. Some of
it requires crufty old versions of various toolkits. Having those
toolkits go away makes it much harder to get this packages to run. If I
have an older version that does compile, I can determine if it even works
at all. (Which happens far too often for me. *cough* *cough* numerix
*cough*)

It is not just the things in the distro you need to worry about. It is
also the things that others may want to build using the distro.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 06:56 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> writes:

RC> This is a non-issue if upstream uses the autotools properly,
RC> i.e. is shipping pre-generated files and doesn't run them while
RC> building.

The upstream developers still need to have autoconf213 in order to
actually develop the package, though. Hence they still need to get
that old version of the package from somewhere. I see no reason why
Fedora shouldn't simply provide it for them.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-05-2008, 07:07 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> I'm not sure I can go along with this.

Nod, -1 here.

If folks exist that want to maintain (and use) these crufty autofoo pkgs,
let 'em continue to do their thing.

Am I missing something? Are these older packages causing some harm? Are
the primary autoconf/automake maintainers objecting to these compat pkgs?

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:54 PM.

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