On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/22/2011 04:35 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > 1. "Automake 2" turns out to be a failure, it gets abandoned, and > > "Automake 1" becomes again the center of all our developement > > efforts. No problem for you, since you're still using this older > > automake. > > > > 2. "Automake 2" is a success, and we drop support for Automake 1. At > > this point, it shouldn't be too big a pain for you to convert to the > > new automake (a good documentation about incompatibilities between, > > and/or transition from, automake 1 and 2 should exist at this point). > > Also, assuming that many other packages are using automake 2 by now, > > and thus requiring GNU make, it should be much more acceptable for > > the NTP build system to do the same. > > A half transition happens, which turns out to be a nightmare until > Automake 2 adoption actually becomes common. This is exactly what > happen between Automake 1.5 and Automake 1.8, each of which introduced > many backwards-incompatible features, and between Autoconf 2.50 and > "some time later". > Hmm, good point... maybe the safest way to prevent this is to make it clear that this would be a *new project*, that while inspired to automake and sprouting from its codebase, has different goals and assumptions and APIs? In particular, a new name might be warranted... What about "AutoMire"? It's not already taken (just make a web search), it gives some due credit to Quagmire (from which I'd like to steal as much as I can :-), and will allow us to retain the `AM_' namespace.
Regards, Stefano
