| 1 |
On 8 September 2017 at 22:44, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream |
| 5 |
> > does not cooperate (Bug#630420). |
| 6 |
> > Removal in 30 days. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't have any reason to disagree with this but I expected a |
| 10 |
> citation for those things to be in the bug you referenced. They're |
| 11 |
> not, and I don't see any bugs on the tracker. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The effort of upgrade per each version is becoming greater. |
| 14 |
Previous and next versions required significant work, issues reported |
| 15 |
to upstream with the hope of a change, but most is rejected. |
| 16 |
The build system is so complex that is specific to gcc/ld and |
| 17 |
hard-coded dependencies locations and cflags/ldflags magic. |
| 18 |
Unless we have a very good reason (important dependency), my |
| 19 |
suggestion is to drop it. |
| 20 |
Do we have such a reason? |
Archives