On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Stepan Kasal wrote:
If your autotools maintainer cannot do that, you shall return him for
replacement of defective parts. ;-)
I would be truely aghast if I found that the several people who
independently maintain autotools for my own package were doing this
kind of surgury on it.
IMHO, this is not a strong reason. Autoconfigury is interconnected
with the code anyway, and things like this can happen. There has to
be an agreement about what is the autotoolser allowed to commit and
what needs your approval, anyway.
It seems that we are still not quite communicating. Each major OS has
independent package maintainers (often many tens of maintainers) who
usually have nothing to do with the original packge
maintainer/developer and are not in the habit of asking permission or
making themselves known. The package author can be dead and buried
and they will still function. A common task is to replace the
autotools delivered with the package with versions prescribed by the
OS package maintenance team so that all of the packages in the OS
release are consistent. Often various patches are applied in advance.
This common scenario should be considered whenever an autotools
feature is deprecated.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
