On 4/16/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The "mea culpa" is to permit for long time to modify "configure" instead of
"configure.ac" or "configure.in" that is used by "autoconf" and/or "automake".
Another "mea culpa" is don't update the autoconf/automake versions when
the GCC''s scripts are using very obsolete/deprecated
autoconf/automake versions.
What world are you living in? Do you even look at the source?
Even though http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html has not been
updated, the toplevel actually uses autoconf 2.59 already and has
since 2007-02-09. And how can you say 2.59 is obsolete when 90-99% of
the distros ship with that version? Plus automake 1.9.6 is actually
the latest version of 1.9.x automake.
libtool on the other hand is the older version but that is in the
progress of being fixed, don't you read the mailing lists?
Currently, "autoconf" is less used because of bad practices of GCC.
Huh? What do you mean by that?
I don't know anyone who touches just configure and not use autoconf.
Yes at one point we had an issue with the toplevel needing an old
version of autoconf but that day has past for 2 months now.
Also usually what happened is that someone would regenerate the
toplevel configure with the incorrect version of autoconf and then
someone would notice that and just regenerate it. Not a big issue.
The big issues are not with the configure scripts at all. It has to
do with people abusing sometimes their power of maintainership or at
least that is how I see it.
Configure scripts are not even related to what FX is talking about.
You should look into the bug reports before saying something about the
configure scripts. One of problem that FX is talking about is the
fall out due to the C99 extern inline patch which I had mentioned when
the patch was posted, it will break targets left and right. The other
problem FX is talking about is the recent fallout due to enabling dfp
for x86-linux-gnu which was obviously not tested for all x86-linux-gnu
targets anyways :).
-- Pinski
