On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:28 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > Don't forget autoconf, gcc, Samba, Tomcat, and other critical system tools. To throw an opinion into the pot, I like the current system. It makes perfect sense to me to consider 'gnome-desktop' and 'gnome-desktop3' to be two different things, 'autoconf' and 'autoconf213' as two different things, and so on and so forth. Conceptually that's what they are. There's no time I wouldn't mind which one of the two I got, there's no situation I can see in which it's any kind of conceptual _improvement_ to say 'they're two versions of one thing'. So far as a Linux distribution is concerned, they are different components. autoconf is a Thing, autoconf213 is a Different Thing. It's not really just a version of the autoconf Thing *for the purposes of a distribution*, which is why it's been denoted as a Different Thing in the first place. Both the original proposal and Vit's extensions of it seem to be solutions in search of problems; in all the cases of co-existing builds of codebases with different APIs that I'm aware of, I can't think of one in which it would be an improvement (or even make sense at all) to maintain the multiple builds of each codebase within a single spec file, git repository and so on. Again, the different builds are different Things: it's very unlikely that we always want to build each one at the same time in the same way, so what is the advantage in pretending we do? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
