Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
These packages end up in a total mess when doing so. There actually are
plenty of such cases out there. Almost all packages which still apply
autoconf < 2.59 or automake < 1.7 have such problems.
They wouldn't if the autotools weren't gratuitously breaking compatibility
all the time.
When will stop to spread your tirades of hatred against the autotools?
> They could use a compatibility mode, or even finegrained
compatibility policies, like a certain other build system successfully uses
for backwards compatibility. And certain pointless changes could just have
been avoided altogether.
Languages, such as the "autoconf" and "automake" languages change - This
is the way of life.
And at some point in their lives, they will have to break with history
and abandon backward compatibility.
The autotools are not any different from other programming languages,
such as C or C++.
The only difference is: People silently fix their C/C++ code to meet
these languages' changes, but prefer to big mouth about the autotools
change something every now and then.
They prefer just breaking things.
FUD - How many lines of code has been changed in Fedora because of
gcc-4.4? Many.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
