Hi,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> We are pleased to announce the GNU Automake 1.14 minor release.
>
>
> - The next major Automake version (2.0) will unconditionally activate
> the 'subdir-objects' option. In order to smooth out the transition,
> we now giv
* Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
> [Re-adding the list, sorry for the confusion]
>
> On 08/12/2013 06:16 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Hi everybody.
> >
> > (You didn't reply to the list, did you mean that?)
> >
>
[Re-adding the list, sorry for the confusion]
On 08/12/2013 06:16 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini (stefano.lattar...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Hi everybody.
>
> (You didn't reply to the list, did you mean that?)
>
No, thanks for noticing. I'm re-adding the list.
>> Sorry for the delay,
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> >> That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding.
> >
> > Can you elaborate why?
>
> No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for
> paranoia being the right setting
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
>> That sounds kind of risky, promises of compatibility notwithstanding.
>
> Can you elaborate why?
No. I'm just being paranoid. But there is good precedent for
paranoia being the right setting in matters of backwards compatibility.
> If the
* Dan Kegel (d...@kegel.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version
> > and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for
> > example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was released
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Previously I would upgrade the automake package to the latest version
> and add a new binary package for the previous version. So, for
> example, if automake was at version 1.10 and 1.11 was released
> upstream I would update the automake packa
* Eric Dorland (e...@debian.org) wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> I was just getting around to packaging this for Debian and I have a
> question. Given the new versioning scheme shouldn't the APIVERSION (as
> defined in configure.ac) be 1.13 and not 1.14? Or more precisely, does
> it make sense for the bi
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> We are pleased to announce the GNU Automake 1.14 minor release.
>
> This release comes with two important changes:
>
> 1. It introduces a new feature aimed at making the implementation
> of non-recursive build systems more convenie
Hi Stefano,
I was just getting around to packaging this for Debian and I have a
question. Given the new versioning scheme shouldn't the APIVERSION (as
defined in configure.ac) be 1.13 and not 1.14? Or more precisely, does
it make sense for the binary to be renamed given that this release
should ha
10 matches
Mail list logo
