On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing. > > This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to concede; so while I > agree with the decision to deprecate (but not remove) INCLUDES from > automake, I think it is fair game to state that someone switching to > Automake-NG should be prepared to avoid INCLUDES, as part of that switch.
Oh. I claim ignorance. I blindly assumed the implementation in -NG was just as trivial as in plain old Automake. When there are technical reasons to drop INCLUDES in Automake-NG, it's a totally different situation. I then agree that it's perfectly ok to issue a (default visible) deprecation warning in Automake, in order to enable an easy upgrade path to -NG in the future. I should have known that the removal wasn't as trivially stupid as it looked at first sight... Cheers, Peter
