| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8 September 2017 at 22:44, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream |
| 6 |
>> > does not cooperate (Bug#630420). |
| 7 |
>> > Removal in 30 days. |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I don't have any reason to disagree with this but I expected a |
| 11 |
>> citation for those things to be in the bug you referenced. They're |
| 12 |
>> not, and I don't see any bugs on the tracker. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The effort of upgrade per each version is becoming greater. |
| 15 |
> Previous and next versions required significant work, issues reported |
| 16 |
> to upstream with the hope of a change, but most is rejected. |
| 17 |
> The build system is so complex that is specific to gcc/ld and |
| 18 |
> hard-coded dependencies locations and cflags/ldflags magic. |
| 19 |
> Unless we have a very good reason (important dependency), my |
| 20 |
> suggestion is to drop it. |
| 21 |
> Do we have such a reason? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't think so. That is a very good description of a valid reason. |
Archives