* Jeroen van Wolffelaar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 06:05:26PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I don't think this removal was such a good idea. Certainly, cleaning up > > the archive is a valid goal, but breaking dozens of packages along the > > way is not. The submitter of this bug did not offer the affected > > packages any upgrade path. Some of the affected packages have reached > > maintenance stages where it's unreasonable for the upstream maintainer > > to make a new release just to upgrade automake. Note that > > re-automaking all the affected packages as part of the packaging is > > likely to create larger diffs and will thus increase the size of the > > archives, perhaps more than what is saved by removing automake1.6. > > I think it was a good idea to remove it. As the maintainer noted, it's > the 5th or so automake version in the archive, of series of similar (but > indeed not 100% compatible) versions. It's laudeable to try to reduce > the number of versions out there. > > The maintainer also announced his intention four months ago, cc'ing all > involved maintainers, and there wasn't a single public reply to his > mail afaics. Also he filed wishlist bugs on all involved packages 5 > weeks ago, giving again ample time for people to prepare on migrating. > The removal also doesn't involve any inconvenience for users, it only > prohibits rebuilds and new uploads. > > This, together with the fact that upgrading to automake1.7 (available > in Debian well over 3 years now) is said to be really simple and also, > assistance was offered by the automake maintainer, made it an easy call > for me. Sure it'll cause some short-term inconvenience, but (1) it's > early in the release cycle, and (2) we're ending up with less versions > of the same software to maintain in etch etc.
Thanks Jeroen, could not of put it better myself. And to address the no upgrade path concern, in the majority of cases there is no "path", the newer versions of automake will just work. Otherwise some minor changes may need to be made, and I'm here to help if it's needed. I think about half the bugs I filed were already closed before the removal without me doing anything, so the difficulty can't be too great. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
