Re: Automake 1.6b available and the version numbering issue

2002-08-01 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Hi Respond, >>> "Respond" == Respond To List Only <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Respond> Let me preface this with the comment that, although it Respond> may lok like I'm ranting on some small issue that Respond> suddenly pushed me into a fit of rage, I'm actually Respond> sanely trying to rais

Re: Automake 1.6b available and the version numbering issue

2002-08-01 Thread Eric Siegerman
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 11:48:00AM -0400, Respond To List Only wrote: > So, one comparison function for Automake, one for OpenSSL, one for the > next program, one for the next program... Again, creating upstream > problems for downstream users. Emphatically agreed. > > # For the purpose of orde

Re: Automake 1.6b available and the version numbering issue

2002-08-01 Thread Respond To List Only
Let me preface this with the comment that, although it may lok like I'm ranting on some small issue that suddenly pushed me into a fit of rage, I'm actually sanely trying to raise points that I feel were not considered dutring the lifespan of automake and other projects. Please don't be insulted

Re: Automake 1.6b available and the version numbering issue

2002-08-01 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Respond" == Respond To List Only <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Respond> ...and how *is* the logic for 1.6b compared to 1.6.3 ? Is that like Respond> 1.(6.2).0 > 1.6.3 ? Here is how this logic is documented in the source. (Automake contains a comparison function for its version numbers, may

Re: Automake 1.6b available and the version numbering issue

2002-08-01 Thread Respond To List Only
Alexandre; Just want to steal the soapbox here to point out that "1.6b" is more difficult for automated systems to deal with than "1.6.2". Consider the logic to determine whether 1.4-p4 is greater than 1.4.2 or 1.5. > ... works with 1.6.3 but doesn't with 1.6b. ... ...and how *is* the logic

Re: Automake 1.6b available.

2002-08-01 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Bob" == Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Bob> Any idea when 1.7 will be released (roughly, obviously; I Bob> mean, months? weeks? days?) I've got a build tree in a Bob> cvs that uses cvs automake. It's waiting for 1.7 until Bob> it's committed :) CVS Automake needs Autocon

Re: Automake 1.6b available.

2002-08-01 Thread Bob Ham
On Sun, 2002-07-28 at 20:17, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > If you have some time, please try it on your package and report any > issue you encounter. Especially, please shout loud if your package > works with 1.6.3 but doesn't with 1.6b. (It'll better for everybody > if we can fix compatibility

Automake 1.6b available.

2002-07-28 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Here is a snapshot of the current development version of Automake, in case you want to get a grasp of what Automake 1.7 will look like. The NEWS entry is appended. If you have some time, please try it on your package and report any issue you encounter. Especially, please shout loud if your packa