On 08/21/2012 05:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2012 16:53, Diego Elio Pettenò ha scritto: >>>> do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really >>>> hope the answer is yes, of course). >> From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less >> painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using >> autoconf-2.1 than we still have right now.... > > Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have > made sense would have been a mapping like > > 2.50 2.90 > 2.51 2.91 > 2.52 2.92 > 2.53 2.93 > 2.x, x >= 54 3.(x-54) > > This would have made it clear that the transition was not expected to be > too smooth. Note that following each version was a lot of work, but > 2.13->2.50 and 2.13->2.54 weren't that different (in fact 2.13->2.54 was > probably easier due to less bugs). > > Another thing that was missing was the author's reaching out to convert > other projects, which is what you've been doing (and it's been very > welcome). Did you try sed and grep already? > Not sed, no (maybe you can try it to see how the conversion goes from someone not involved in Automake-NG as I am?). But grep, coreutils, m4 (1.4.x branch), bison, dejagnu, parted and autoconf has already been successfully converted:
<https://github.com/slattarini/coreutils-am-ng> <https://github.com/slattarini/grep-am-ng> [ ... and so on, you got the gist ... ] Regards, Stefano