Re: GNU Automake 1.14 released
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland wrote: > >> That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding. > > > > Can you elaborate why? > > No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for > paranoia being the right setting in matters of backwards compatibility. > > > If the promise of compatibility is real, what's the downside? > > I can think of two: > 1) users wanting to check to see if their code is compatible with > automake-1.13 > 2) users wanting to regenerate the same data file as automake-1.13 > did, to avoid unneeded diffs While I can sympathize with these use cases, Debian isn't there to provide every version of automake. The vast majority of packages do not get multiple versioned in Debian and when we do it's almost always the minimum number of versions necessary. If these are the only use cases I don't think that justifies carrying the extra version. > >> If I were sticking my neck out, I'd keep on with the old scheme, > >> where automake-1.13 means automake 1.13. It would surprise people less. > > > > Well I think if it doesn't work it shouldn't be difficult to down the > > road provide an automake1.13 package. So the risk doesn't seem that > > high. > > But you will still surprise users in the two categories I mentioned. > - Dan > -- Eric Dorland ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GNU Automake 1.14 released
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland wrote: >> That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding. > > Can you elaborate why? No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for paranoia being the right setting in matters of backwards compatibility. > If the promise of compatibility is real, what's the downside? I can think of two: 1) users wanting to check to see if their code is compatible with automake-1.13 2) users wanting to regenerate the same data file as automake-1.13 did, to avoid unneeded diffs >> If I were sticking my neck out, I'd keep on with the old scheme, >> where automake-1.13 means automake 1.13. It would surprise people less. > > Well I think if it doesn't work it shouldn't be difficult to down the > road provide an automake1.13 package. So the risk doesn't seem that > high. But you will still surprise users in the two categories I mentioned. - Dan
Re: GNU Automake 1.14 released
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland wrote: > > Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version > > and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for > > example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was released > > upstream I would update the automake package to 1.11 and create a new > > automake1.10 package for people who couldn't deal with the backwards > > incompatibility. > > > > Given the new version scheme, 1.14 should be backwards compatible with > > 1.13. So my plan is to upgrade the automake package to 1.14, have it > > "Provides: automake1.13" and add symlinks from /usr/bin/automake-1.13 > > to /usr/bin/automake-1.14 (since 1.14 creates only the automake-1.14 > > binary). I will not provide an automake1.13 package with the older > > version since that doesn't make sense if 1.14 is properly backwards > > compatible. > > That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding. Can you elaborate why? If the promise of compatibility is real, what's the downside? > If I were sticking my neck out, I'd keep on with the old scheme, > where automake-1.13 means automake 1.13. It would surprise people less. Well I think if it doesn't work it shouldn't be difficult to down the road provide an automake1.13 package. So the risk doesn't seem that high. -- Eric Dorland ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GNU Automake 1.14 released
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland wrote: > Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version > and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for > example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was released > upstream I would update the automake package to 1.11 and create a new > automake1.10 package for people who couldn't deal with the backwards > incompatibility. > > Given the new version scheme, 1.14 should be backwards compatible with > 1.13. So my plan is to upgrade the automake package to 1.14, have it > "Provides: automake1.13" and add symlinks from /usr/bin/automake-1.13 > to /usr/bin/automake-1.14 (since 1.14 creates only the automake-1.14 > binary). I will not provide an automake1.13 package with the older > version since that doesn't make sense if 1.14 is properly backwards > compatible. That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding. If I were sticking my neck out, I'd keep on with the old scheme, where automake-1.13 means automake 1.13. It would surprise people less. - Dan
Re: GNU Automake 1.14 released
* Eric Dorland (e...@debian.org) wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > I was just getting around to packaging this for Debian and I have a > question. Given the new versioning scheme shouldn't the APIVERSION (as > defined in configure.ac) be 1.13 and not 1.14? Or more precisely, does > it make sense for the binary to be renamed given that this release > should have no backwards incompatibility with 1.13? OK given the lack of response I'll just describe my plan for Debian for 1.14 and people can yell if they think I'm doing it wrong. Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was released upstream I would update the automake package to 1.11 and create a new automake1.10 package for people who couldn't deal with the backwards incompatibility. Given the new version scheme, 1.14 should be backwards compatible with 1.13. So my plan is to upgrade the automake package to 1.14, have it "Provides: automake1.13" and add symlinks from /usr/bin/automake-1.13 to /usr/bin/automake-1.14 (since 1.14 creates only the automake-1.14 binary). I will not provide an automake1.13 package with the older version since that doesn't make sense if 1.14 is properly backwards compatible. Makes sense? Any questions, comments or concerns? -- Eric Dorland ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: subscription issue
Hello Rudra, Rudra Banerjee wrote: > I am a subscriber of this list, but there is no post delevered in my > account. I also get a automake bounce notice, as > "Your membership in the mailing list Automake has been disabled due to > excessive bounces ..." > I tried to reply the mail as directed on the same day, but got: > "- Results: > Invalid confirmation string. Note that confirmation strings expire" > > Is it possible to delete my account and recreate it? I tried to delete, > and failed. In the future if you have questions concerning the mailing list administration it is better to send your correspondence to the mailing list owner. Add "-owner" to the address. In this case the mailing list owner address is automake-ow...@gnu.org and that will reach the humans who administer the mailing lists. If your account is being disabled due to too many bounces it means that your mail server is bouncing messages from the mailing list. Mailman has an algorithm that it uses to determine if the account is alive or dead. One bounce every now and again won't unsubscribe you. But if are more bounces than the threshold then it thinks that your account is no longer alive and disables the address. You can always unsubscribe and subscribe yourself at any time. But if email is bouncing then that will be the problem because you won't be able to answer the confirmation messages. Since this discussion won't be of interest to the members here I will take the discussion offline and try to work toward a resolution. Bob
subscription issue
Hello, I am a subscriber of this list, but there is no post delevered in my account. I also get a automake bounce notice, as "Your membership in the mailing list Automake has been disabled due to excessive bounces ..." I tried to reply the mail as directed on the same day, but got: "- Results: Invalid confirmation string. Note that confirmation strings expire" Is it possible to delete my account and recreate it? I tried to delete, and failed.
