On 09/21/2012 02:10 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > According to Automake's NEWS file, it is since at least Automake 1.8, > and in autoreconf we are already assuming aclocal >= 1.8 anyway. > > * bin/autoreconf.in (parse_args): Simplify a little by just assuming > the automake option '--force-missing' is supported. > ($automake_supports_force_missing): Delete, no longer needed. > * NEWS: Update. > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini <[email protected]> > --- > NEWS | 3 ++- > bin/autoreconf.in | 6 +----- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS > index 54e8112..e5e0dcc 100644 > --- a/NEWS > +++ b/NEWS > @@ -5,7 +5,8 @@ GNU Autoconf NEWS - User visible changes. > ** The use of the long-deprecated name 'configure.in' for the autoconf > input file now elicits a warning in the 'obsolete' category. > > -** Older version of aclocal (< 1.8) are no longer supported by autoreconf. > +** Older version of automake and aclocal (< 1.8) are no longer supported
You'll hit a minor merge conflict here once you apply my suggested fix to 1/3. Thinking out loud, do we want to mention the 'Automake package', since both 'automake' and 'aclocal' executables come from the same package? That is, maybe: Older versions of the Automake package (< 1.8) are no longer supported by autoreconf. Or is that too subtle for why we aren't listing aclocal? Your choice. ACK. -- Eric Blake [email protected] +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
