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

Re: Proposal for fixing automake



* Joseph Carter (knghtbrd@bluecherry.net) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 04:01:45PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Nuke 1.5, fix the packages to work with both autoconf 2.50 and automake
> 1.6.  Call it good.
> 

I agree that within debian it would desirable to do that, but some
users might be peeved they can't use automake 1.5 anymore...

-- 
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: pgpZtlUs5VPKN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: