| |||||||||||||
KS2011: Afternoon topicsKS2011: Afternoon topicsPosted Oct 28, 2011 11:33 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465)In reply to: KS2011: Afternoon topics by Rudd-O Parent article: KS2011: Afternoon topics
waf also encourages projects to copy waf into their source tree, a nightmare for distro maintainers.
(Log in to post comments)
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 30, 2011 17:20 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
I don't see how it's any worse than autotools, which does pretty much the same thing. Some distros try to have a "always rerun automake/autoconf" rule, but that frequently runs into problems because of version incompatibilities.
I'm sure a similar rule could be made for waf-using packages, with similarly problematic results.
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 30, 2011 18:12 UTC (Sun) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
Automake has remained mostly backward compatible since after 1.4. waf makes no guarantees whatsoever, and replacing the version of waf included in a package requires much more work.
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 30, 2011 21:31 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> Automake has remained mostly backward compatible since after 1.4
Yet, it's still necessary for Debian to include automake 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11, and autoconf 2.13, 2.59, 2.64, and 2.67.
If it were that easy to upgrade, I'd expect that everything would've been converted to at least automake 1.10 by now (which came out in 2006).
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 30, 2011 23:11 UTC (Sun) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Are those old autoconf/automake packages shipped in order to resolve build-dependencies for other packages in the archive, or are they shipped so that end users can still build their software which may be less well-maintained than your typical open source project?
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Nov 1, 2011 2:42 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> Are those old autoconf/automake packages shipped in order to resolve build-dependencies for other packages in the archive
Yes. Some reference material.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2011/03/msg00039.html
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Nov 4, 2011 0:36 UTC (Fri) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link] Debian includes those because there hasn't been a huge reason not to. There's been discussion about removing some of them, and some thoughts about removing 1.4 -- it's definitely only in Debian for users' convenience, not because other things in Debian depend on it.
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Nov 7, 2011 0:23 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Nope, still not unused: there's 3 packages remaining build-depending on it in unstable, down from 30 in lenny and 8 in squeeze. (counting packages in main only). And of course that's not looking at packages whose maintainers aren't calling automake at all, but are shipping pre-built files generated with automake 1.4.
|
|||||||||||||