Subject: Re: what to call autoconf-2.52 (was: CVS commit: doc)
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/03/2002 18:50:36
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 12:19:18PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Thursday, January 3, 2002 at 16:11:28 (+0200), Alistair G. Crooks wrote: ]
> > Subject: CVS commit: doc
> > Import this package for just now as autoconf-devel.
> This is good news!
> But as for making use of it....
> It does not seem wise to make those packages that need autoconf-2.52
> depend on autoconf-devel. Would it not be better, if somewhat more
> work[*], to rename autoconf-2.13 to "autoconf-2.13" and to simply call the
> new version "autoconf".
Yes, it would. I don't have the time to do that right now. I'm also
aware that we needed an autoconf-2.52 package. That was the reason
it was done that way.
> [*] Obviously you don't want to change all the packages needing autoconf
> to depend explicitly on autoconf-2.13, but rather only those that really
> need it. This way the effort to adjust the dependencies can be spread
> out somewhat and they need only be adjusted as people discover true need
> for the old version in any package.
Long term, what I want is an old autoconf package - autoconf-classic
:-) - and the standard autoconf one, based on the 2.52 and later
This way, some of the other developers and users of pkgsrc can help me out.