Re: GNOME 2.2 screenshots

[Frederic Crozat <fcrozat mandrakesoft com>]

Le lun 08/07/2002 à 12:02, Mathias Hasselmann a écrit :
> On 7 Jul 2002, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Tom Tromey <tromey redhat com> writes:  
> > > Havoc> Ideally the automake-1.6 package would not even contain a thing
> > > Havoc> called simply "automake" since it just encourages bugs of the
> > > Havoc> form "I got the wrong automake"
> > > 
> > > I don't think we'll do this.  Instead just put AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = 1.6
> > > into the top-level Makefile.am of any converted package.  Then you'll
> > > get an error if you accidentally use 1.4.
> > 
> > That makes sense.
> > 
> > > Havoc> If we can't do parallel install, we can't migrate to new
> > > Havoc> automake module-by-module. That means that as soon as we move
> > > Havoc> to 1.6 for HEAD, then people can't work on the stable branch
> > > Havoc> anymore, unless they have two totally different build prefixes,
> > > Havoc> with their own copies of autotools.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand.  Is this somehow related to the automatic rebuild
> > > rules?
> > 
> > No. It's simply that we have to move all thousand-plus people building
> > out of CVS, and the dozens of modules they're building, as a whole.
> > Because without parallel install, people can only have one version of
> > automake installed. We can't change just one module to 1.6, because
> > users would then need to switch automakes, build that module, and
> > switch automakes back.  This is why we are still using 1.4, because
> > changing all this at once is just too hard.
> > 
> > If we could switch each module on its own time, we would have dumped
> > 1.4 ages and ages ago. Because switching would be really easy, since
> > we wouldn't have to cause any pain/breakage in order to do it; we'd
> > just say "you have to install all the automakes" and then things would
> > Just Work for people and the packages could use a mix of automakes.
> > 
> > Maybe it's too late to fix; aside from renaming automake to
> > automake-1.4, there's the /usr/share/aclocal conflict issue, and all
> > that. I dunno.
> 
> 	Pardon? Pathnames? If that's the entire problem: Paths are easy to
> adjust - hey, we have the sources! Uh... And aren't the paths uses by
> those tools adjustable by the configure script of those tools? Well, and
> autoconf (which handles all the .m4 melange for autmake even knows about
> an --autoconf-dir switch, suiteable to select the aclocal directory to
> use...
> 
> 	Well IHMO it should be enough to create a set of trivial wrapper
> scripts (instead of all this symlink/renaming voodoo) which just reads
> some environment variables to get arround the entire problem. 

BTW, Debian (and Mandrake too) ship a wrapper for autoconf to deal with
autoconf 2.13 and 2.5x ...

-- 
Frédéric Crozat
MandrakeSoft