On 2.12.2010 17.31, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 02/12/2010 alle 17.24 +0200, Petteri Räty ha scritto:
>>
>> Ok thanks for clarifying the last point. Doesn't this go against your
>> original wish to mask it though? 
> 
> If you read my first mail, I said I want them masked, and not removed
> because they are still useful for upstream work.
> 

In my mind I associate masking with eventual removal.

> Being useful for upstream work, I don't want them being unavailable or
> unusable, which would happen if you were to block them on newer libtool
> just as much as it would happen by removing them.
> 
> The mask might be something along the lines of
> 
> # Obsolete automake packages, only useful for upstream work.
> # Do not depend on them, and don't install them unless you really
> # need to use them.
> 
> (And having them masked, repoman will complain if somebody was to use
> WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.4).
> 

Sounds like an ok compromise.

Regards,
Petteri