| 1 |
On 2.12.2010 17.31, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il giorno gio, 02/12/2010 alle 17.24 +0200, Petteri Räty ha scritto: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Ok thanks for clarifying the last point. Doesn't this go against your |
| 5 |
>> original wish to mask it though? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If you read my first mail, I said I want them masked, and not removed |
| 8 |
> because they are still useful for upstream work. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In my mind I associate masking with eventual removal. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Being useful for upstream work, I don't want them being unavailable or |
| 14 |
> unusable, which would happen if you were to block them on newer libtool |
| 15 |
> just as much as it would happen by removing them. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The mask might be something along the lines of |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> # Obsolete automake packages, only useful for upstream work. |
| 20 |
> # Do not depend on them, and don't install them unless you really |
| 21 |
> # need to use them. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> (And having them masked, repoman will complain if somebody was to use |
| 24 |
> WANT_AUTOMAKE=1.4). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Sounds like an ok compromise. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Petteri |
Archives