> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Actually, I'm in favor of this. There are some barriers to doing
Tom> it, but nothing very hard. I don't think we'll do it with the
Tom> next release though.
Akim> I'm afraid it would become unmaintainable, with no means to really
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> 1. Merge the autoconf and automake packages into one package.
Ralf> This would
Tom> Actually, I'm in favor of this. There are some barriers to doing
Tom> it, but nothing very h
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. I am not sure if recommending share/aclocal- for third party
> macros is a good idea:
> * Currently hardly managable on the user-side => If at all, then some
> auto*tool should installing *.m4's to share/aclocal-
> automatically (data_ACLOCALS = fo
Am Mit, 2002-01-16 um 18.06 schrieb Havoc Pennington:
>
> Jens Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -m4datadir = $(datadir)/aclocal
> > +m4datadir = $(datadir)/aclocal-@VERSION@
>
[..]
>
> So if the change is done this way, we need a commitment from the
> autoconf maintainers that share/
> "Havoc" == Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Havoc> That is, it makes sense to put "automake-1.5" in a script or
Havoc> spec file, but not to put "automake-1.5.1p5" in there because
Havoc> it'll change with annoying frequency and the micro version is
Havoc> not relevant, only the
Hi,
Look, I think everyone is overcomplicating the problem here. It's
really really really really simple. Anything that is compatible has
the same name; anything that isn't compatible has a different
name. Because from the point of view of an interface user (an app), a
compatible thing implement
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Havoc> in the spec file I rename automake to automake-1.4,
> Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.4, automake to automake-1.5,
> Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.5, and symlink automake to
> Havoc> automake-1.5.
>
> Doesn't `configure --program-suffix=-1.
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> My current thinking is that we would name the installed version
Tom> and the install directories after the "install version". For
Tom> anything in the 1.5 series (1.5.1, 1.5-p1, 1.5c, whatever), this
Tom> would be "1.5". Then we would g
Just a thought ...
Keep different versions of the autotools
(autoconf, automake, and libtool) in
different autoconf directories
(for eg, autoconf-2.52, automake-1.5b,
and libtool-1.4d could be installed
in /local/autoconf-2.52).
In addition, each package has
its own bootstrap script that invokes
===
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This solution keeps $prefix/bin fairly uncluttered, moving the many
> scripts below their own tree under $prefix/shared/. I think this is
> what's done by the autoconf & automake wrappers used by cygnus, but
I'm
> not
On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 22:38, Ted Irons wrote:
> Just a thought ...
Might as well put in my .02 Euro as well.
I kinda like a gcc-style approach; i.e. install the actual automake/...
scripts as $prefix/share/automake/version/automake. Then have a
$prefix/bin/automake that checks for some option t
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> 1. Merge the autoconf and automake packages into one package.
Ralf> This would
Actually, I'm in favor of this. There are some barriers to doing it,
but nothing very hard. I don't think we'll do it with the next
release though.
R
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tom> My current thinking is that we would name the installed version
> Tom> and the install directories after the "install version". For
> Tom> anything in the 1.5 series (1.5.1, 1.5-p1, 1.5c, wha
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe `automake' should not be a symlink but a script that
> > select the right automake version to use for a project.
>
> I heard Debian has had poor results with that, b
Am Son, 2002-01-13 um 22.14 schrieb Tom Tromey:
> > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tom> But I'm not as sure about renaming the executables by default. I
> Tom> think I'd prefer to simply install as `automake', and let package
> Tom> maintainers use `--program-suffix=-1.5
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> But I'm not as sure about renaming the executables by default. I
Tom> think I'd prefer to simply install as `automake', and let package
Tom> maintainers use `--program-suffix=-1.5' (or equivalent) in their
Tom> spec files. What do you t
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This seems to be the minimum required to allow parallel installs
> of Automake. However doing only this makes unsafe to use
> versions installed that way, due to the rebuild rules issue you
> pointed out: using automake-1.5 is useless if the re
[...]
Tom> I think renaming the directories in $(datadir) is fine.
Tom> But I'm not as sure about renaming the executables by
Tom> default. I think I'd prefer to simply install as
Tom> `automake', and let package maintainers use
Tom> `--program-suffix=-1.5' (or equivalent) in their spec
To
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doesn't `configure --program-suffix=-1.5' work?
It probably would, sure. I just didn't think of it.
> Would it be the job of `make install' to handle this symlink?
> If yes, how should it be updated? Say I install
> Automake-1.5 *after* Aut
> From: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: automake parallel install stuff
> Date: 08 Jan 2002 18:34:50 -0500
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if we could convince you and the autoconf guys to think
> about making incompatible autotools releases install in parall
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> => IMO, this patch is one alternative towards allowing parallel
> installation of _automake_, but does not help much wrt. the actual
> autotool-issues "Joe Occasional Installer" will meet (eg. when building
> GNOME modules).
>
I agree there are oth
> "Havoc" == Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Havoc> I'm wondering if we could convince you and the autoconf guys to
Havoc> think about making incompatible autotools releases install in
Havoc> parallel.
I think this idea makes sense. It does seem apparent that we need to
let peo
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would require to change all packages providing aclocal/ macros of
> their own, i.e. is not feasible at present time, IMHO.
It can be done slowly if you continue to search datadir/aclocal for
now, and also search the versioned directories. Just de
Hi,
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you mean by "versioned executables"?
>
The bindir/automake-1.4, bindir/automake-1.5 files.
> I think renaming the directories in $(datadir) is fine. But I'm not
> as sure about renaming the executables by default. I think I'd prefer
> to
[...]
Havoc> in the spec file I rename automake to automake-1.4,
Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.4, automake to automake-1.5,
Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.5, and symlink automake to
Havoc> automake-1.5.
Doesn't `configure --program-suffix=-1.5' work? (To rename the
binaries, I mean. The directo
Am Fre, 2002-01-11 um 03.52 schrieb Havoc Pennington:
>
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > => IMO, this patch is one alternative towards allowing parallel
> > installation of _automake_, but does not help much wrt. the actual
> > autotool-issues "Joe Occasional Installer" will meet
26 matches
Mail list logo
