Re: Autoconf 2.50
Junichi Uekawa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Ben Pfaff <email@example.com> immo vero scripsit
> > So far, it sounds like most of the bugs are either in packages or
> > shared between autoconf and packages. I'll hold off for at least
> > a few days, then, on deciding whether to revert.
> I have a strong feeling that mpich's configure won't work with 2.50.
> It would be nice to have a "backward-compatible" version of autoconf.
Oh, I'm more or less certain that I will put out, sometime in the
next week, a backward-compatibility package for autoconf. The
question right now is which way should it be: `autoconf' as 2.50
and `autoconf-2.13' as 2.13, or `autoconf' as 2.13 and
`autoconf-2.50' as 2.50. The decision depends on how many
complaints I get--if 2.50 is largely compatible with 2.13, then
it's the former; if it has lots of problems, it's the latter.
Ben Pfaff <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
MSU Graduate - Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer - GNU Developer
Personal webpage: http://www.msu.edu/user/pfaffben