Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

On 01/30/2013 10:07 PM, Eric Dorland wrote: > > [SNIP PROPOSAL for new versioning scheme] > > I like it. > Glad to hear that :-) > I think it would mean that Debian could carry less > simultaneous automake packages at the same time, ie it would have a > separate package per major release and just

Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

Hi Diego. On 01/31/2013 12:46 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 28/01/2013 20:48, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Feedback, opinions, objections? > > First of all, I would like to hope that this is not going to be rushed > through — it's an important and big change > Agreed. > and I think having di

Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

On 28/01/2013 20:48, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Feedback, opinions, objections? First of all, I would like to hope that this is not going to be rushed through — it's an important and big change and I think having discussion about it with others might be a better idea. One thing that worries me at

bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

On 01/30/2013 04:30 AM, Daniel Herring wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> Feedback, opinions, objections? > > There was a lot to read, and I confess to not giving it full justice. > > Others have already extolled the virtues of backwards compatibility. > > > Regarding

Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

On 31/01/2013 13:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > But there is already such a discussion going on; see: > > > > Or did you mean something else? I would expect a more ... visible discussion. Honestly bugs are all nice and shiny but I don't expe

Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

Diego Elio Pettenò writes: > Okay that sounds reasonable. I would be more toward 24 than 18 — maybe > going for 18 to the next "beta"-quality automake, 24 to the final > release. Speaking of which I would suggest that we call X.0 the betas, > and suggest general usage only when X.1 is out... IMHO

warning with help/Makefile

Hello friends, While trying to complie a package, automake gives a lot of Warning about gnome-doc-utils.make. It looks like: $ autoreconf --install gnome-doc-utils.make:74: warning: if $(DOC_H_FILE: non-POSIX variable name gnome-doc-utils.make:74: (probably a GNU make extension) help/Makefile.am

Re: warning with help/Makefile

On 2013-01-31 17:19 +, Rudra Banerjee wrote: > While trying to complie a package, automake gives a lot of Warning > about gnome-doc-utils.make. > It looks like: > $ autoreconf --install > gnome-doc-utils.make:74: warning: if $(DOC_H_FILE: non-POSIX variable > name > gnome-doc-utils.make:74: (p

Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

On 31/01/2013 20:58, Jack Kelly wrote: > IMHO, that seems like a great way to cause trouble for unsuspecting > users. (Anyone remember KDE4.0?) Can you expand on why you think it's a > good plan? Because unlike KDE, automake can put a big fat warning in the generated configure that says "You're us

Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

Diego Elio Pettenò writes: > On 31/01/2013 20:58, Jack Kelly wrote: >> IMHO, that seems like a great way to cause trouble for unsuspecting >> users. (Anyone remember KDE4.0?) Can you expand on why you think it's a >> good plan? > > Because unlike KDE, automake can put a big fat warning in the gene