On 2.12.2010 17.31, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno gio, 02/12/2010 alle 17.24 +0200, Petteri Räty ha scritto: >> >> Ok thanks for clarifying the last point. Doesn't this go against your >> original wish to mask it though? > > If you read my first mail, I said I want them masked, and not removed > because they are still useful for upstream work. >
In my mind I associate masking with eventual removal. > Being useful for upstream work, I don't want them being unavailable or > unusable, which would happen if you were to block them on newer libtool > just as much as it would happen by removing them. > > The mask might be something along the lines of > > # Obsolete automake packages, only useful for upstream work. > # Do not depend on them, and don't install them unless you really > # need to use them. > > (And having them masked, repoman will complain if somebody was to use > WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.4). > Sounds like an ok compromise. Regards, Petteri
