----- Original Message ----- From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Tom Tromey PING!
> >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Robert, what would be wrong with the head branch as is now? Why > >> would you want 1.5? Is it related to the Autoconf requirements? > > Robert> Well, head is for development AFAIK, so I cannot simply > Robert> publish on the squid web pages tht developers need > Robert> automake-head. And getting folk to grab a CVS snapshot just to > Robert> develop squid is a little unreasonable (think interference > Robert> with package management on debian/redhat, ports tree on *BSD > Robert> etc). But pointing at the most recent release is ok!. > > Miscommunication. I really meant HEAD *if released*. So I'm asking > it again: would the current CVS Automake be a viable release for you? > To the best of my knowledge, yes. The caveat is that I have not kept up to date with CVS HEAD myself :}. I will do a test run this coming weekend with automake HEAD to confirm this. (Although, if you are unaware of any new bugs, then it's probably OK regardless.) Rob
