On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:03:58PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Could you roll out a 2.57d package into experimental, then? Some GNU
> > projects, like libtool, already require autoconf 2.58 for bootstrapping
> > from CVS.
>
> Okay, that's easy enough.
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you roll out a 2.57d package into experimental, then? Some GNU
> projects, like libtool, already require autoconf 2.58 for bootstrapping
> from CVS.
Okay, that's easy enough. It's in incoming now.
--
On Perl: "It's as if H.P. Lovecraft, returned
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:11:28AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> If you follow the autoconf mailing lists, you know that bugs have
> already been found in 2.57d that will presumably be fixed in
> 2.58. I'd rather let what bugs get fixed in 2.57d get fixed in
> 2.57d, and then deal with bugs in 2.58
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 05:53:38PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> [ CCing debian-qa ]
If the maintainer doesn't want to package it, so be it. I don't see why
-qa needs to be dragged into this.
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:30:37PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:30:37PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > As you most certainly know, the autoconf team is going to release 2.58
> > > very
> > > soon, and they have rolled out a release candidat
[ CCing debian-qa ]
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:30:37PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As you most certainly know, the autoconf team is going to release 2.58 very
> > soon, and they have rolled out a release candidate known as 2.57d so that
> > it is pro
6 matches
Mail list logo
