FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip at kanarip.com
Tue May 6 11:24:32 UTC 2008


Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 23:43 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> The gain is we decide what to keep and what not to keep based on who 
>> actually is willing to fight to keep it around rather than whoever feels 
>> like complaining on devel list. Its a corollary to "its easier to 
>> apologize than to ask permission," the people who notice the change are 
>> a tiny and far more important subset than the people who will complain 
>> ahead of time.
> 
> It doesn't account for the developers who will have failures, notice we
> don't package a version of autoconf anymore and say "Screw that" and
> move to some other development platform which does support what they
> need.
> 
> 

My $.02 worth of thoughts:

One could imagine a policy in which new packages using these tools would 
not be accepted per-se, while the tools would still be available, 
packaged, for those other packages and developers that need it.

Does such, or something similar, make sense?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip




More information about the devel mailing list