Re: Error building m4 on Solaris 10

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Eric,

On 29 Apr 2008, at 12:04, Eric Blake wrote:

According to Thomas Klausner on 4/29/2008 7:32 AM:




if I have enough free time), that I wasn't planning on a 1.4.12.  For
patching 1.4.11, it may be easiest to rerun gnulib-tool to pick up the

preference?

| Do you have a patch I could use for 1.4.11 or will 1.4.12 be out soon? My hope is that 1.6 is close enough to releasing (ie. less than 2 months, changes that have occurred since the release (to date, I am not aware of any backwards-incompatible gnulib changes that would break compilation of 1.4.11). But if there is enough consensus on this list, and based on the number of gnulib improvements for a lot of lesser-tested platforms in the meantime, I guess a 1.4.12 release might make sense. Anyone else have a

I'm not even convinced that spreading our limited resources to maintain
1.6 vs 2.0 is a great idea... 1.4, 1.6 *and* 2.0 is definitely the road
to hell.


made a huge impact on our productivity and release schedule.

Cheers,
        Gary
--
  ())_.              Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ( '/           Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
  / )=         ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_

Even with several more developers on libtool than m4, maintaining 3 branches

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part