Re: [kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
Hi Tim, --- Timothy Stack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When i sync'd janosvm with the current kaffe I updated to the latest auto* tools, it wasn't too hard to do. My main complaint so far is that configure doesn't get run automatically after you run autogen.sh and the Makefiles don't regenerate themselves. Other than that it was a pretty easy transition. could you send me a patch for autogen.sh? cheers, dalibor topic __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
[kaffe] Re: [kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
Nobody likes to mess with the auto* tools. How about if we put together a separate small toolchain package that developers can install, which contains versions of the auto* tools that can be installed in an non-intrusive location. We'd release a new toolchain tarball periodically. Then anybody would be able to update the configure scripts. A more controversial move would be to remove the autogenerated bits from CVS - then people building from CVS would be forced to use autogen.sh and the toolchain. I'm interested in what CVS users think about that. I think we could meet the needs of casual CVS users by just doing more frequent releases. Personally, I think we should continue to check in the autogenerated bits (eg. configure and the Makefile.in's) for the time being. Cheers, - Jim Hi, I'd like to do another round of asking who's using what version of auto* tools, and if upgrading kaffe to use the latest versions would be desirable or cause problems. See this thread for the last discussion of the issues involved: http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2002-December/028418.html I'd like to raise the discussion again, because a) Pat has 'leaped ahead' of automake 1.4 and autoconf 2.13 on his system. b) Dan has been using latest auto* tools for a while (and libtool from CVS) without much problems. c) Tim doesn't like to mess with auto* tools :) d) I'd prefer to use the latest greatest autotools for a few reasons, one of them being able to merge Dan's libtool-from-CVS patch. I've CC:ed Pat, Tim and Dan because they've sent in patches for the build system recently, but I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion, too. best regards, dalibor topic __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
[kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
Hi, I'd like to do another round of asking who's using what version of auto* tools, and if upgrading kaffe to use the latest versions would be desirable or cause problems. See this thread for the last discussion of the issues involved: http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2002-December/028418.html I'd like to raise the discussion again, because a) Pat has 'leaped ahead' of automake 1.4 and autoconf 2.13 on his system. b) Dan has been using latest auto* tools for a while (and libtool from CVS) without much problems. c) Tim doesn't like to mess with auto* tools :) d) I'd prefer to use the latest greatest autotools for a few reasons, one of them being able to merge Dan's libtool-from-CVS patch. I've CC:ed Pat, Tim and Dan because they've sent in patches for the build system recently, but I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion, too. best regards, dalibor topic __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
Re: [kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
Hi guys. I'd like to do another round of asking who's using what version of auto* tools, and if upgrading kaffe to use the latest versions would be desirable or cause problems. See this thread for the last discussion of the issues involved: http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2002-December/028418.html i'm using autoconf 2.13 and automake 1.4p6 on Debian/unstable. i do have autoconf2.50 on my box, though the command autoconf refers to 2.13 by default. I'd like to raise the discussion again, because a) Pat has 'leaped ahead' of automake 1.4 and autoconf 2.13 on his system. b) Dan has been using latest auto* tools for a while (and libtool from CVS) without much problems. c) Tim doesn't like to mess with auto* tools :) d) I'd prefer to use the latest greatest autotools for a few reasons, one of them being able to merge Dan's libtool-from-CVS patch. i read the previous thread and am a little unclear as to what advantages autoconf 2.56+ and automake 1.7 have over the older, more prevalent versions. however, since i'm not a great maker of build files i'll take your word as to their superiority. for me, snagging the latest versions via apt (i use debian) isn't really a problem, so i wouldn't mind the transition. i would imagine that, for most users, getting the latest and greatest versions of auto*, though it might require a 5 minute delay before tinkering with their latest CVS copy of kaffe, wouldn't be a huge problem, so i would say go for the upgrade. i've done a quick survey of the dependencies of the old auto* vs. the new auto* and they both rely on the same versions of libc and other libraries, so users wanting to compile kaffe would only have to install the latest auto* and not a ton of other new libaries as well. cheers, ~rob ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
Re: [kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
Hi, hi, I'd like to do another round of asking who's using what version of auto* tools, and if upgrading kaffe to use the latest versions would be desirable or cause problems. See this thread for the last discussion of the issues involved: http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2002-December/028418.html When i sync'd janosvm with the current kaffe I updated to the latest auto* tools, it wasn't too hard to do. My main complaint so far is that configure doesn't get run automatically after you run autogen.sh and the Makefiles don't regenerate themselves. Other than that it was a pretty easy transition. best regards, dalibor topic tim ___ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
Re: [kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
gonzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: i'm using autoconf 2.13 and automake 1.4p6 on Debian/unstable. i do have autoconf2.50 on my box, though the command autoconf refers to 2.13 by default. Current Debian unstable uses autoconf 2.57. Prior to this, Debian had both autoconf 2.13 and 2.5x simultaneously. /usr/bin/autoconf was a wrapper script which would invoke autoconf2.5x if a configure.ac file existed in `pwd`, or autoconf2.13 otherwise. This is true even in woody (Debian 3.0), so it's been that way for a fairly long time. Try this: cd /tmp touch configure.ac autoconf --version -- Greg Wooledge | Truth belongs to everybody. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | msg01356/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
