>>> Yet another autoconf version, as if the four that we already have in the >>> archive weren't enough. :-( But it is needed for ncurses if we ever >>> need to patch configure.in, see #580190. >> And its not possible to fixup the idiot who uses an own autoconf >> version? > Considering that his dispute with the GNU Autoconf maintainers > originates in the last millennium and he's been maintaining his patches > for twelve years or so, the answer is: no, that is not possible.
*sigh* >> Or if that doesn't work, replace the shit in his source by something that >> works with all the lot we already have? > Given that > - Thomas makes extensive use of the features that he introduced in > his patched autoconf version and that were rejected by the GNU > maintainers; > - his fork is based on a very old autoconf version (2.52) that we don't > have, and I have no idea what would break if we patch out the > incompatible macros and use either autoconf2.59 or autoconf2.13; > - ncurses' configure.in changes very frequently (patches for ncurses are > released weekly, and about every second-third patch touches > configure.in); > this would be a maintenance nightmare. An autoconf wizard that wants to > tackle this task is welcome to join the ncurses team and try, but I'm > not going to do that. That hypothetical wizard should also have a look > at xterm, lynx-cur and possibly other packages that are maintained by > Thomas Dickey to bring them in line with Policy ยง2.2.1. Sounds like a task to get rid of software from that guy wouldnt be all to bad one. Ohwell. -- bye, Joerg SUSE = Soll Unix Sein, Eigentlich. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r5gg1cq2....@gkar.ganneff.de
