Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
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?
No.
The packager should not have to use the autotools normally. So during
package review, what version of autotools is necessary might not come
up. Only when a problem is discovered that requires changing the
configure.in/ac or Makefile.am will the version of autotools start
mattering to the packager.
While the "problem" may not be apparent at first, one can tell from any
configure.in/ac or Makefile.am whether it needs one of the older autofoo
tools though, right? If so, I can only conclude the reviewer would be
able to raise this (but, possibly, not block approval?). If not so,
forget what I said -I'm no guru in autofoo ;-)
BTW... Given your statement:
> The packager should not have to use the autotools normally.
I "never" *cough* the two packages that I'm upstream for *cough* ship
any autofoo output files, only autofoo input files; it's excluded from
the source tree and excluded in tarballs... Should I reconsider this? Is
it gonna give trouble at some point?
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
