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

Re: Use of automake & friends vs. just running configure

On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 00:33 +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 08:25:26PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > 
> > > Instead they are confused and upset by cryptical errors of autotools, 
> > > when new versions are not backcompatible as often (if not always)
> > > 
> > Which recent (let's say the last 5 years) versions haven't been
> > backwards compatible?  If you've got an example, I'd like to see it so
> > we can get a test case and fix that bug.
> > 
> Keep any decently complicated program which uses scripts generated with
> autoconf 2.13 and try to use a new autoconf instead.
That does break the "5 year" part ... autoconf2.13 hasn't been
maintained upstream in about 8 years now.

> You could also say that it's an ancient version, but there are a lot of
> programs which uses yet that version. Indeed we have an autoconf2.13 pkg
> for that reason. 
Indeed, a large number of these do actually work quite well with 2.50
though -- many of those that don't are fixed with autoupdate or a few
minutes work.

> Anyway this is a vexata questio since years, I'm constantly annoyed
> of listen to opposite ideas about. As an upstream I work as I prefer
> and many people do the same. Others do differently. We are in a free
> world. 
I have the opposite view, I'm upstream for one of these things so would
quite like people to use them properly and more importantly *be able* to
use them properly :-)

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: