reassign 749647 general thanks On Wed, May 28 2014, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Currently we have a guile-less 'make' package as part of build-essential
> and a guile-ful 'make-noguile'.
> What would you think about switching the names around? So you'd have
> build-essential depend on 'make-noguile', and a plain 'make' package
> providing a guile-ful make?
This is something that would need to be tested for smooth
upgrades (installing the make-guile package now is not entirely
flawless, since some packages have a versioned dependency on make, and
make and make-guile (or make and make-noguile) conflict).
This is not the decision of the make maintainer this needs
buy-in from various teams, and perhaps a rough consensus from -devel.
I would be happy to implement whatever decision the consensus is
reached on.
> This would keep the closure of build-essential as it is now, but the
> guile support wouldn't be delegated to a second-class status. I can
> imagine that the guile support would be under-utilized simply because
> 'apt-get install make' doesn't pull it in.
> Currently 'make-guile' does Provide 'make', but that isn't enough. The
> current situation optimizes for the needs of the bootstrappers, and
> while those are important, I don't think this is the primary use of make
> in Debian.
That is a useful discussion to have. However, this is not the
place to have this discussion, since the bug list of make-guile has
little to no visibility. Reassigning to general to get wider
distribution.
manoj
--
Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other. Poor
Richard's Almanac
Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
