Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Hello, Earnie!
>
> > IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of automake
> > that isn't a released version. When I was learning automake, autoconf,
> > etc. I went about it by actually using the tools on themselves. Not
> > having a released version of automake would have been a stumbling block
> > as at the time I didn't have a cvs client and wouldn't have known that
> > it was possible to get the automake source from a CVS server even if I
> > had a cvs client.
>
> I guess you are slightly confused.
No, I'm not.
> Makefile.in generated by the CVS
> Automake will be included in all releases of Autoconf.
Yes, I not this, as well as the Makefile.am. What I wouldn't be able to
do without the CVS version is recreate Makefile.in. I can just imagine
the plethora of email to this list.
> Moreover,
> Makefile.in are even included in the CVS repository of Autoconf. You
> shouldn't need CVS Automake to build CVS Autoconf (but you may need some
> script like egcs-update to ensure that Makefile.in's are newer that their
> dependencies after CVS update).
>
egcs-update!? What's that?
> Another proposal was to modify Automake to use some new features in
> Autoconf. It doesn't mean that every project using the latest Autoconf
> (CVS or otherwise) will be required to use an unreleased version of
> Automake.
>
Their intertwinedness warrants a merger of projects. ;)
Cheers,
Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
