Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> writes: > On Nov 06, Dima Kogan <d...@secretsauce.net> wrote: > >> The argument for guile in default 'make' is as before. And also the > So I suppose that the arguments for not doing this are still valid as > well.
I did not see a previous discussion of this, so I haven't seen any arguments for not doing this. Did I miss the discussion? Manoj didn't mention anything in his reply to this bug. I saw a discussion about having separate guile-full and guile-less packages, but this bug report it not proposing fighting that. >> current situation is misleading to users. The main feature of make 4.0 >> is guile support. A user who wants this goes to 'apt-get install make', >> sees 4.x being installed, and happily attempts to use this shiny new >> guile support, only to discover that their Makefiles do not work as >> expected. > How many packages in Debian actually use guile makefiles? I don't know if you're trolling, so I will bite. The answer: it doesn't matter. Debian does not exist so that DDs can entertain themselves. Debian exists to provide a nice system to Debian users, and the current make naming scheme produces a sub-optimal experience for them.