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 :-) Scott -- 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