On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 16:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes: > > On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 13:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> It doesn't help that there are something like four different, mutually > >> incompatible versions of Automake all in active use by various > >> packages. > > > Can you please illustrate an example of backwards incompatibility? That > > would be a bug that needs to be fixed. > > Well, notice that we have five different versions of Automake in Debian. > If Automake were fully backward-compatible, we would only have one or two > versions; those other versions are still present for good reason. > Except nobody can actually find an example of the good reason anymore, which leads me to suspect it's actually bogus. Automake 1.6 through 1.9 are largely interchangeable. I personally keep 1.4 and 1.9 installed, and have no problems. > It's more likely to work for simple packages if they're modified to run > both aclocal and automake, but with more complex packages you run into the > fact that Automake really has changed over time, and the language that the > current versions support is not exactly the same as the language that > earlier versions support. > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([1.9]) or whatever minimum version you've tested it with. The rebuild rules will notice you don't have that version, warn you that they can't update things, and carry on. (Likewise this works for AC_PREREQ on Autoconf and LT_INIT when Libtool 2.0 is ready). 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