On 05/06/2008 07:44 AM, Karsten Hopp wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 23:43 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
The gain is we decide what to keep and what not to keep based on who
actually is willing to fight to keep it around rather than whoever
feels like complaining on devel list. Its a corollary to "its easier
to apologize than to ask permission," the people who notice the
change are a tiny and far more important subset than the people who
will complain ahead of time.
It doesn't account for the developers who will have failures, notice we
don't package a version of autoconf anymore and say "Screw that" and
move to some other development platform which does support what they
need.
My $.02 worth of thoughts:
One could imagine a policy in which new packages using these tools
would not be accepted per-se, while the tools would still be
available, packaged, for those other packages and developers that need
it.
Does such, or something similar, make sense?
Such a policy would be ok with me. The whole intention for this proposal
was
to disencourage usage of the old tools, not to force maintainers to
rewrite their
configure scripts immediately or use another distribution.
Nonetheless maintainers of forementioned packages should check if it is
necessary to run autofoo during the build. Most of the times it isn't
and if I
remember correctly even I am guilty of doing this due to laziness and/or
time
constraints.
Doing it during the build is not the issue. You can't even generate a
patch to configure if the tool to do regenerate it is not available in
the distro.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
