Isn't it fun when developers can't use consecutive version numbers ? As if they were doing it on purpose (hard to believe that a 3rd party is forcing them to do it)
Regards, David -----Original Message----- From: Jim Meyering <[email protected]> To: Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:33:47 +0200 Subject: Re: [parted-devel] Parted bootstrap - logic error when comparing version numbers > Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Curtis Gedak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Recently I acquired the latest GIT repository for parted (1.8.8.1.115-d53a) > >> and have discovered a problem with building the program. > >> > >> The problem is that an 'automake' version >= 1.10a is required. I am using > >> 1.10.1, which I believe would be >= 1.10a. > > No. 1.10.1 is *older* than 1.10a. > And automake-1.10b was recently released, which I consider to be > stable enough that I used it to bootstrap the stable release > of upstream coreutils-7.2. > > > I've pushed a change to require 1.10 only since 1.10a was an alpha > > version of it. > > It would be better to encourage developers to use a newer version > of automake, since what is now called 1.10b appears to be quite > close to what automake-1.11 will be. > > _______________________________________________ > parted-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
