On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:59:22PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> Seeing autoconf 2.50 in unstable today prompts this message. My
> understanding is 2.50 will not work out-of-the-box with 2.13
> configure.in's.
>
> If this is the case, shouldn't 2.50 be delegated to a different name,
> similar to gcc-2.95/3.0? or perhaps make use of alternatives similar to
> yacc, vi, etc?
>
> It's very good to have autoconf 2.50 available, and very shortly after
> release. However, almost 0 projects make use of it, those of us that
> install autoconf 2.50 would have to autoupdate all of our local sources,
> or revert to a local install of autoconf 2.13.
>
> Comments/recommendations?
There certainly are packages that use 2.50 already ... parted, for
instance, has had an:
AC_PREREQ(2.49b)
at the top of it's configure.in for quite a while now ... and don't try
using anything less ;-)
2.50 claims to be `backwards-compatible with well-written configure
scripts' of 2.13 ...
(can't remember where I read that - must've been in the autoconf mailing
list archives ...)
Timshel
--
Timshel Knoll <timshel@pobox.com> for Debian email: <timshel@debian.org>
Geomatics/Computer Science double degree, RMIT
Debian GNU/Linux developer, see http://people.debian.org/~timshel/
For GnuPG public key: finger timshel@debian.org
Attachment:
pgpQt5ckCb_DY.pgp
Description: PGP signature