* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > Most of the packages that I've glanced at so far seem to have moved > > from an ancient version (often automake1.4 or automake1.9) to 1.11. > > In the past, Automake had a tendency to break compatibility > > between minor releases, making it desirable to lock the build system > > to the specific version that upstream used. However, recent versions > > have been queueing up incompatible changes for 2.0 instead (as > > described in the Automake 1.14 release notes, > > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2013-06/msg00009.html>) > > so maybe many of these packages can track 1.x indefinitely? > > Probably automake should have automake1 and automake2 binary packages > once they release 2.0?
Given the pace of automake development over the last 1-2 years I wouldn't worry about an automake 2.0 anytime soon. -- Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca> 43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
