tags 661068 + wontfix thanks On 2012-02-24 00:14 +0100, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> As a fork of autoconf, autoconf-dickey shares bugs with autoconf, and > maintaining them as separate codebases means there are two places to > patch instead of one. That is an upstream problem, not a problem > created by the packaging. > > So much for background. Now the request: would it be possible to > incorporate the autoconf-dickey features into mainline autoconf, as a > syntax variant requested with a build-time or compile-time option? Probably not, since Thomas forked off from a very old version of autoconf (2.52, as you might have guessed). Even if you do the arduous work of rebasing his patches on a newer autoconf version, it will likely introduce more bugs than it fixes. Or, to put it differently: TTBOMK Thomas is the only user of his autoconf fork, and I very much hope it stays that way. Which means that any bugs in his fork that affect his own packages will probably get fixed, and other bugs are not really relevant. > That is, I'm suggesting replacing minimizing the delta and then > replacing source files with the equivalent of "diff -D" output. > > I realize this would be a difficult project, hence the severity. The > purpose of this report is mostly to have a place to coordinate work. I'm certainly not going to spend any time on this. Whoever wants to make their life miserable can do that of course, but they should do some historic searches first. E.g. I just discovered a precedent at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=194691. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
