* 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:
pgp5QzHcx4rN1.pgp
Description: PGP signature