Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
RC> This is a non-issue if upstream uses the autotools properly,
RC> i.e. is shipping pre-generated files and doesn't run them while
RC> building.
The upstream developers still need to have autoconf213 in order to
actually develop the package, though. Hence they still need to get
that old version of the package from somewhere. I see no reason why
Fedora shouldn't simply provide it for them.
- J<
In light of this, I have a proposal:
We fix our specs to not use autoconf, and remove the old versions as
stated, but we keep them around, perhaps in another branch in CVS or
simply removed from the F10 tag. Then we just wait for complaints. If
someone comes in and says "I was actively using that" we can just slap
it back in. After one release cycle we can flush the rest.
--CJD
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
