[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:06:47 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0

Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto:
>> > do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
>> > hope the answer is yes, of course).
> From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
> painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using
> autoconf-2.1 than we still have right now....

Exactly.  The -NG moniker would have made no sense.  What could have
made sense would have been a mapping like

    2.50             2.90
    2.51             2.91
    2.52             2.92
    2.53             2.93
    2.x, x >= 54     3.(x-54)

This would have made it clear that the transition was not expected to be
too smooth.  Note that following each version was a lot of work, but
2.13->2.50 and 2.13->2.54 weren't that different (in fact 2.13->2.54 was
probably easier due to less bugs).

Another thing that was missing was the author's reaching out to convert
other projects, which is what you've been doing (and it's been very
welcome).  Did you try sed and grep already?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]