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

Re: Proposal for fixing automake



* Andreas Metzler (ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org) wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> writes
> >> What do people think? If there's no serious objections, I'll upload
> >> automake1.6 and start fixing 1.4 and 1.5 once its uploaded.
> 
> > If feasible, my preference would be that the package "automake"
> > contains the latest version (i.e. 1.6).  The older version could be
> > stuck in "automake1.4", if need be.  [I wonder whether 1.5 is even
> > needed at this point.]
> [...]
> 
> This is probably a silly question, but somebody has to ask it:
> Is really 1.5 needed, are there (more than a couple) packages that
> work with 1.5 but don't with 1.6?

It's not a silly question at all. My impression is that 1.5 and 1.6
are basically compatible, and are certainly more compatible then 1.4
and 1.5. The reason we *might* want to keep 1.5 around is that it
still works with autoconf 2.13, whereas 1.6 needs autoconf 2.52 or
greater.

-- 
Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Attachment: pgpNuSD4qRsM0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: