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