"Rod Widdowson" <[email protected]> writes:
>> > I strongly support requiring newer versions of Autoconf rather than
> using
>> > inferior probes or reinventing the wheel, particularly when they're
>> > already nearly four years old. Autoconf is improving significantly in
>> > ways that require one to maintain far less code in each package. If one
>> > absolutely must do development on a very slow-releasing platform with
>> > outdated software, Autoconf is trivial to install (assuming that M4
> isn't
>> > so ancient that it can't run Autoconf).
>>
>> 2.60 requires newer than just "not ancient", apparently.
>
> Not sure I buy that: RHEL/Centos5 is the most recent enterprise offering, so
> it's going to be around for a _long_ time and it is currently pegged at
> 1.59. I'd be the first to admit that I don't understand these things, but
> we probably need to make sure that people _deploying on_ enterprise
> operating systems are not disenfranchised.
RHEL6 is in beta right now. I'd not worry about it personally because
while EL5 will still be in use for a while I certainly wouldn't want to
be sitting on it doing active development, only testing (for which I can
run regen on another system and then use the results on EL5).
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[email protected] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
