On Tuesday 21 May 2013 09:57:32 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > >> Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in > >> the general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about > >> the much hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up > >> right when we need it for a security update. > > > >I know. But there is a lot of tarballs not able to be easily > >autoreconf-ed (more than 10 years old) and not having upstream.. and it > >needs a lot of changes downstream before autoreconf successes.. (and you > >need to have a quite good knowledge about auto-toolset). > > If upstream is dead, the distros should perhaps reevaluate whether to > drop the package or de facto become upstream by a process of adoption. that's might sound great, but really doesn't line up with reality. distros are chronically understaffed and becoming defacto upstreams for every random package that goes dormant/dead and can't survive an `autoreconf` isn't viable. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
