On 08/21/2012 05:09 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 21/08/2012 08:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Exactly. The -NG moniker would have made no sense. What could have >> made sense would have been a mapping like > > Yes that would have helped _a lot_. > > Another thing that would have helped would have been out-of-the-box > support for multiple installed versions, whereas it seems most > distributions had to reinvent a different way to deal with this. > For what concerns Automake-NG, we might simply rename:
automake -> automake-ng aclocal -> aclocal-ng in the end. So far, I have not done that yet because it would require changes to at least the Autoconf-owned 'autoreconf' programs and the Gnulib-owned 'bootstrap' script in order to keep Automake-NG able to bootstrap several important GNU packages. > As of today, Gentoo still ships quite a few packages that use autoconf > 2.1x, and that's quite painful as we can't update them to newer automake > either (when they use automake at all), at least not without rebuilding > the buildsystem altogether, which in turn means we have to keep > automake-1.4 1.5 and so on around. Sigh! > Regards, Stefano
