"Thomas E. Dickey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Lars Hecking wrote: |> |> > Bob Friesenhahn writes: |> > > On 8 Oct 2002, Akim Demaille wrote: |> > > > |> > > > There is one big question which must be answered first: will it have |> > > > to be Autoconf 2.13 compatible? |> > > > |> > > > I *strongly* suggest that it must not. It should AC_PREREQ 2.54 |> > > > immediately. Then, I'm fine with checking the M4 code and making it |> > > > up to date. If needed, I'll wrap a 2.55 with whatever is needed to |> > > > have Libtool work better with Autoconf. |> > > |> > > I agree. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use an antique |> > > version of Autoconf which dates from 1996. |> > |> > Because it works? In any case, it's the respective maintainer's choice. |> > |> > Making autoconf incompatible with previous versions of itself while not |> > upping the major release number at the same time was a pretty bad move IMHO. |> |> Deliberately introducing design incompatibilities simply encourages people |> to use other tools.
In my experience almost all problems that occur while moving to autoconf 2.5x are outright bugs in the configure.in/aclocal.m4 scripts. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
