* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) wrote:
> Eric Dorland writes ("Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of automake1.7"):
> > The versions after 1.4 were where backwards-incompatible changes
> > started showing up. As a very unscientific census using google code
> > search, there are about 36,800 Makefile.in's generated by automake 1.4
> > on the web, versus 113,000 generated by automake 1.6 and later.
>
> This is a good reason to keep 1.4, at least for now and perhaps
> indefinitely.
>
> Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Periodic automake cleanup: removal of
> automake1.7"):
> > I don't think we should be advocating the usage of automake 1.4 by
> > shipping it in out next stable release. [...]
>
> Shipping an older version of a tool like automake is not "advocating
> [its] usage". It's making life less difficult for people who still
> need it.
>
> I don't imagine it takes much maintenance but of course I'm not saying
> that someone else ought to do the work. If the existing maintainer
> wants to get rid of automake1.4, I would be happy to take it over to
> keep it in the archive.I'm happy to keep maintaining automake1.4 and I agree it should stay in the archive, at least until wheezy is released. > Ian. > > -- Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
