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

Re: Proposal for fixing automake (was Re: State of automake packages)



* Junichi Uekawa (dancer@netfort.gr.jp) wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 14:15:59 -0400
> Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm.. it's not an alternative if it is not compatible.
> > > It's like bison and yacc, gpc and gcc.
> > 
> > Well to some degree they are compatible. I think a better analogy
> > would be the various vi clones. They all sort of do the same things,
> > but they are not necessarily compatible.
> 
> I had an impression that newer version of automake required 
> newer version of autoconf, which was nowhere near compatible.

Alright, the newer versions of automake are not completely backwards
compatible. But the automake alternative would be more of a
convenience, like x-terminal-emulator or x-window-manager. 

-- 
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: pgpehhowb0T6M.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: