[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, ac
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:23:59 +0200 |
On 04/15/2012 02:00 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> On 04/14/2012 08:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> ...
>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>> Won't this cause trouble for those who want to use the new tools?
>>>
>> Yes, unless they create a couple of symlinks:
>>
>> automake -> automake-ng
>> automake-0.5a -> automake-ng-0.5a
>
> If you change the names, is there still justification for the smaller
> version number?
>
Yes; see below, at the end of my reply.
But I'm less and less convinced that changing the names is a good move
at this point -- too much churn to avoid such a small source of possible
confusion...
Moreover, the present patch shows that such a renaming can be done with
little fuss and churn for what concerns the changes required to the
automake source tree; so the patch can be easily resurrected at a later
time, when (if ever) we feel that the renaming is truly warranted.
So, I say we drop this change and this discussion for the moment. OK?
> Alternatively, you could make it so automake (the ng version) stops
> immediately
> unless there is an "ng" option in configure.ac's AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(...) list?
> Then, there is no risk of using automake-ng on a project that does not
> explicitly request it, and there is no need to pollute autoreconf
> with the "-ng" suffix.
>
This is a nice idea, easy to implement, and with little churn. Will do.
Thanks.
>>> I would prefer to leave the names unchanged.
>>>
>>> For the record, I tried automake/aclocal built from the ng branch in
>>> cppi today. Here is the very first change that was required in order
>>> to make it so ./bootstrap no longer failed:
>>>
>>> [I would have much preferred to see that automake-ng uses a much larger
>>> version number. With the obligatory decrease to 0.5, I am forced to
>>> let all older versions of automake pass these prereq tests. ]
>>>
>> Some people are quite jumpy at the idea that we might try to force
>> Automake-NG on them through either a confusion of names or a dirty
>> trick with version numbers:
>>
>> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-ng/2012-02/msg00024.html>
>
> Yes, I remember that thread.
> I'm surprised that you would present this case (one person's fear that
> classic automake would be left unmaintained) as justification for the
> version numbering scheme.
>
Actually, what I find justified is the OP's misgiving that we might want to
"forcibly" co-opt the current Automake user base by tricking/enticing them
with an higher version number. He had a valid point there, albeit expressed
with unwarranted aggressivity. If Automake-NG is to take over, that must be
for its quality and features, not because the Automake developers (ab)use
their position to push for it. Then, if such an Automake-NG *earned* success
has a final consequence the stagnation of Automake, I'd see no problem with
that either; but it's pointless starting mulling about that *now*.
Regards,
Stefano
- [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/04/14
- Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/14
- Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/04/14
- Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/04/15
- Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/15
- Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng,
Stefano Lattarini <=
- Re: [Automake-ng] [PATCH] [ng] maint: rename automake -> automake-ng, aclocal -> aclocal-ng, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/15