On 09/21/2012 05:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > 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. > I'd like to keep aclocal mentioned, for clarity. If you disagree, or can come up with better wording, feel free to change NEWS accordingly with a follow-up patch. I have on strong feeling here, so what you'll decide will be fine with me.
> ACK. > Thanks, pushed. Regards, Stefano
