On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 11:04 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > 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. Wrong. Of cause - you can. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
