[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Automake 2.50 test summary (was: Re: Proposed Autoconf 2.50 path)

On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 12:11:11PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> >>>> "BP" == Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@msu.edu> writes:

> BP> I am thinking about just filing bugs against the packages with
> BP> errors, suggesting that they be updated or adapted for use with
> BP> the autoconf2.13 package.
> I don't understand why do you want to fill bug report against these package.

Becase they're buggy. That's what bug reports are for, actually.

> I've only one package who doesn't build (gnome-core) and I know why. This is
> a problem with the xml-i18n-tools package, of course related to autoconf.
> I'll not downgrade to autoconf 2.13 I'm just waiting for a xml-i18n-tools
> fix.

Do that. But it's still a bug in your package and until that is fixed,
a bug report is appropriate. You are of course free to add a comment
to the bug report, saying that it is an upstream problem that you
expect to be fixed in one of the next releases.

 - Sebastian

Reply to: