FESCo Proposal for blocking older version of autoconf & automake

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 09:54 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:50 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>> On 05/05/2008 11:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>> This step is way over due. It also will teach maintainers not run the
> >>>> autotools while building.
> >>> It will also teach maintainers not to use Fedora for doing upstream work.
> >> I agree.  This proposal seems to be all pain for no gain.
> > The fact Fedora ships gcc-4.3.0 is all pain for no gain.
> 
> Certainly not!  There's been a bunch of useful improvements, as you'll see
> on the gcc web page.
No disagreement, but .. there also are a lot of changes, which require
developers to change/update/rework their sources.

> > Please add versions of gcc of all active GCC-branches, such that people
> > can continue to use f77 and c++'s backward stuff.
> > 
> > Also consider adding a version of gcc which ships still supports libg++.
> > 
> > Do you sense the insanity?
> 
> I don't think this is a relevant comparison.
Why? You are using a dead piece of SW called autoconf-2.13, others are
using a dead piece of SW called gcc-2.7.2/egcs or libg++ or gcc-3.x.-

The only difference is RH playing nice to people using outdated
autotools and pushing around people using outdated c/c++ code or
features/miss-features from older gcc's.

In fact, you are aggressively forcing Fedora based developers to rework
their c/c++/fortran-code or to quit using Fedora, but you refuse to fix
your autotools-code? Double-standards!


>   Most importantly, gcc is a large 
> package, so there is a considerable cost to shipping more than one version.  
> 
> As has been pointed out, this FESCo proposal is mere make-work for no purpose.  
> It serves only to distract maintainers from doing something useful.
To the same extend as gcc-4.3.0 does - It might have escaped you, but
other distros do have alternative toolchains.

Of cause their would be middle-grounds ... but I don't sense any
interest on your (@RH) part to develope/find one. 

Ralf