[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:42:09 +0200

On 08/21/2012 05:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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?
Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone
not involved in Automake-NG as I am?).  But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x branch),
bison, dejagnu, parted and autoconf has already been successfully converted:

  [ ... and so on, you got the gist ... ]


reply via email to

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