Web lists-archives.com

Re: Post-stretch mass bug filing: build-depending on automake1.11




* Paul Wise (pabs@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> 
> > Most of the packages that I've glanced at so far seem to have moved
> > from an ancient version (often automake1.4 or automake1.9) to 1.11.
> > In the past, Automake had a tendency to break compatibility
> > between minor releases, making it desirable to lock the build system
> > to the specific version that upstream used. However, recent versions
> > have been queueing up incompatible changes for 2.0 instead (as
> > described in the Automake 1.14 release notes,
> > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2013-06/msg00009.html>)
> > so maybe many of these packages can track 1.x indefinitely?
> 
> Probably automake should have automake1 and automake2 binary packages
> once they release 2.0?

Given the pace of automake development over the last 1-2 years I
wouldn't worry about an automake 2.0 anytime soon.

-- 
Eric Dorland <eric@xxxxxxxxxxx>
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C  E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature