On Jan 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
> with that?
IIRC, the FSF doesn't recommend requiring unreleased versions of
packages in other packages.
Of course, it's ok if we use automake 1.4a ourselves, but it's
> "Lars" == Lars Hecking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> I think that some of the free Unix/Linux distros use their own
Lars> patched version of automake which in turn is based on cvs automake
Lars> at some more or less random point in time.
Yeah. Red Hat did that. Maybe other distrib
> > I guess you are slightly confused.
>
> No, I'm not.
That's great :-)
> egcs-update!? What's that?
Script developed by GCC developers in the EGCS days to simplify life for
those CVS users who didn't have the full list of up-to-date maintainer
tools. Now available by running
cvs -d :pserver
> I think it is important that automake-using distributions use an
> actual release and not the cvs automake.
I think that some of the free Unix/Linux distros use their own
patched version of automake which in turn is based on cvs automake
at some more or less random point in time. For my ow
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> I guess you are slightly confused. Makefile.in generated by the
Pavel> CVS Automake will be included in all releases of
Pavel> Autoconf. Moreover, Makefile.in are even included in the CVS
Pavel> repository of Autoconf. You shouldn't
Earnie> IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of
Earnie> automake that isn't a released version.
Akim> It seems to me that there is still a chance to have an Automake
Akim> release soon.
That would be nice.
We could also do another automake beta release after the feature
Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Hello, Earnie!
>
> > IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of automake
> > that isn't a released version. When I was learning automake, autoconf,
> > etc. I went about it by actually using the tools on themselves. Not
> > having a released version
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of
> Earnie> automake that isn't a released version.
>
> It seems to me that there is still a chance to have an Automake
> release soon.
>
Hello, Earnie!
> IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of automake
> that isn't a released version. When I was learning automake, autoconf,
> etc. I went about it by actually using the tools on themselves. Not
> having a released version of automake would have been a stumb
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of
Earnie> automake that isn't a released version.
It seems to me that there is still a chance to have an Automake
release soon.
Earnie> When I was learning automake,
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
> >> with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
> >> configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
>
> Pavel> Why not Automake
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
>> with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
>> configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
Pavel> Why not Automake 1.4b?
Pavel> ftp://sourceware.cygnus.c
> I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
> with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
> configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
Why not Automake 1.4b?
ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/automake/automake-1.4b.tar.gz
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
13 matches
Mail list logo
