Hi guys. > I'd like to do another round of asking who's using > what version of auto* tools, and if upgrading kaffe to > use the latest versions would be desirable or cause > problems. See this thread for the last discussion of > the issues involved: > http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2002-December/028418.html
i'm using autoconf 2.13 and automake 1.4p6 on Debian/unstable. i do have autoconf2.50 on my box, though the command "autoconf" refers to 2.13 by default. > I'd like to raise the discussion again, because > a) Pat has 'leaped ahead' of automake 1.4 and autoconf > 2.13 on his system. > b) Dan has been using latest auto* tools for a while > (and libtool from CVS) without much problems. > c) Tim doesn't like to mess with auto* tools :) > d) I'd prefer to use the latest & greatest autotools > for a few reasons, one of them being able to merge > Dan's libtool-from-CVS patch. i read the previous thread and am a little unclear as to what advantages autoconf 2.56+ and automake 1.7 have over the older, more prevalent versions. however, since i'm not a great maker of build files i'll take your word as to their superiority. for me, snagging the latest versions via apt (i use debian) isn't really a problem, so i wouldn't mind the transition. i would imagine that, for most users, getting the latest and greatest versions of auto*, though it might require a 5 minute delay before tinkering with their latest CVS copy of kaffe, wouldn't be a huge problem, so i would say go for the upgrade. i've done a quick survey of the dependencies of the old auto* vs. the new auto* and they both rely on the same versions of libc and other libraries, so users wanting to compile kaffe would only have to install the latest auto* and not a ton of other new libaries as well. cheers, ~rob _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
