"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You don't consider tool-chain-induced corruption serious? I certainly > do.
Like the autoconf maintainers, I don't consider the bulk of autoconf bugs serious (and I'm quite familiar with it). No evidence of serious problems is apparent, just FUD. > > > AFAIK 2.59 is happy enough with datarootdir-correct configure.in, so > > > there's no need to bump the require once you've fixed configure.in. > > > > > 2.59 knows nothing about datarootdir, so you can't trivially DTRT. > "First, do no harm." Even before DTRTing. Please don't be insulting. The `AFAIK' is wrong -- look at the patch. > The question here is, does 2.59 barf on 2.61-correct code, or does it > ignore it? No, it isn't the question. > However, I don't consider non-conformance a serious problem for > non-GNU software, and so I recommend that Darcs not try to enforce > use of 2.6x. Notwithstanding words in the subject, I'm not trying to enforce GNU maintenance standards generally: this is a specific issue. I'll listen to the maintainers on the topic (who've accepted previous configure changes to follow autotools conventions better). > XEmacs has already dealt with the known problems, obviously. Then I guess XEmacs cocked something up; Emacs development code actually requires autoconf 2.61. There doesn't seem to be a relevant bug report against autoconf from XEmacs anyhow -- I actually looked. > I just > would prefer that Darcs not risk gratuitously imposing such pain on > other projects when the autotools have such a horrible record of > backward incompatibility. This pain seems to be a figment of the imagination, and, as I said, Debian has already imposed it on me and many others -- Debian's darcs on my system is built with autoconf 2.60. _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
