Re: build tools standard

I agree totally with this. libtool 1.4.3, automake 1.6, and autoconf
2.53 seem to be a good standard to use. Perhaps we should write up a
policy to propose?

-- dobey

On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 14:59, Dan Mills wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a plea to standardize on the basic build tools (automake, 
> autoconf, libtool, at least) for the duration of gnome's product cycle. 
>   In the short time that I've been doing the gnome 2 tinderbox 
> snapshots, this has already bitten me twice.
> Having parallel-installable tools is a step in the right direction, 
> certainly, but it should not be used as an excuse to never agree on 
> which versions of the tools to use.  My proposal is to reach a 
> consensus on which tools to use at the beginning of the development 
> cycle, and *require* that those versions work until release time.
> Note that I am not advocating that people not use newer tools.  I am 
> saying that just because one maintainer feels like using a newer tool 
> shouldn't be a reason to force everyone to either upgrade to that or 
> parallel-install it.  My (limited) experience tells me that the upgrade 
> usually makes other modules break, and while the parallel-install is 
> better, it's still a pain.  So if anyone uses a newer tool, fine, but 
> it cannot be at the expense of making the standard tools break.
> -Dan

"So I gave up on that, and tried to install gstreamer. Get this. Their
 propose ``solution'' for distributing binaries on Red Hat systems? They
 point you at an RPM that installs apt, the Debian package system! Yeah,
 that's a good idea, I want to struggle with two competing packaging
 systems on my machine just to install a single app." -- jwz

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]