Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, why not jumping to something really more recent. Some people
> will have to upgrade their Perl installation, so they probably won't
> install 5.6 anyway.
Bad idea... Perl 5.6 is the version that ships standard right now with
many stable distr
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > I'm considering dropping support for Perl 5.005 in the future
> > Automake 1.9, and require at least Perl 5.6. Perl 5.6 will be 4
> > years old next month, so it does not sound like asking for the
> > moon.
>
> Actually, why not jumping to someth
> I'm considering dropping support for Perl 5.005 in the future
> Automake 1.9, and require at least Perl 5.6. Perl 5.6 will be 4
> years old next month, so it does not sound like asking for the
> moon.
Actually, why not jumping to something really more recent. Some
people will have to upgr
>>> "Bob" == Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Bob> Question: How would you feel if the installed automake were to use
Bob> perl from PATH instead of the hardcoded in path? Could this be made
Bob> available as an option?
This is already possible. You can say
./configure PERL=
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Perl 5.005_03 will be 5 years old next month, and supporting it
> is becoming painful.
I sympathize. But actually the problem is not the age of the old
version of perl is but rather youth of the new version. The new
version has not yet propagated yet. But let me pr
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
Right now, automake officially requires at least Perl 5.005.
Perl 5.005_03 will be 5 years old next month, and supporting it
is becoming painful.
> []
How many people would be annoyed by this? Is there any reason
why this would be a very bad idea?
I know some peo
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason why this would be a very bad idea?
>
> It is inconsistent? The auto* tools (viz. autoconf) still
> assumes a shell that has no functions. This makes the config
> script incredibly larger and slower than
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> How many people would be annoyed by this?
Not me :-)
> Is there any reason why this would be a very bad idea?
It is inconsistent? The auto* tools (viz. autoconf) still
assumes a shell that has no functions. This makes the config
script incredibly larger and slow
