Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of
> Earnie> automake that isn't a released version.
>
> It seems to me that there is still a chance to have an Automake
> release soon.
>
That would be good, perhaps automake and autoconf could be released in
duet.
> Earnie> When I was learning automake, autoconf, etc. I went about it
> Earnie> by actually using the tools on themselves. Not having a
> Earnie> released version of automake would have been a stumbling block
> Earnie> as at the time I didn't have a cvs client and wouldn't have
> Earnie> known that it was possible to get the automake source from a
> Earnie> CVS server even if I had a cvs client.
>
> I understand.
>
Good. I was hoping that I had enough verbiage to allow you to
understand.
> Earnie> If you do this, please package the source for the version of
> Earnie> automake that you use with the autoconf source.
>
> OK, I'm convinced Autoconf shall not require a CVS Automake, but a
> beta'd Automake is OK. Right?
Yes, as long as it is a readily available package from the GNU mirrors.
Cheers,
Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
