Re: build tools standard

Dan Mills wrote:

I am unconvinced that any module requires new functionality or a bugfix that can't wait until the next gnome release. Assuming a 6-month release schedule, that's an average of 3 months. I think that having a workaround for a few months is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

That sounds fair. I just object to using tools that are 11 months old (autoconf) or 7 months old (automake) at the beginning of the 6 month period.

For comparison, the latest versions of autoconf and automake were released at the start of December. I have been using both to build and release tarballs and they seem fairly solid. They have added support for marking features deprecated in the new autoconf and automake releases, so using them should help developers make their build infrastructure forward compatible with newer releases.

If we do decide to stick to particular versions, I think it is definitely worth while testing out new versions of the tools when they come out. If things break with the new versions and a fix can be produced that works with both the current and "standard" versions, then it should be applied. If such a fix can't be produced, then compatibility with the "standard" version is probably more important.

I _really_ don't want to get to a point where we start 2.5 development and find updating to current build tools is impossible because we are relying on bugs in the old versions.


Email: james daa com au

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