On Jan 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
with that?
IIRC, the FSF doesn't recommend requiring unreleased versions of
packages in other packages.
Of course, it's ok if we use automake 1.4a ourselves, but it's
I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
Why not Automake 1.4b?
ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/pub/automake/automake-1.4b.tar.gz
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
Pavel Why not Automake 1.4b?
Pavel
Akim Demaille wrote:
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I plan to move the Autoconf package to Automake 1.4a. Any problem
with that? I'll also provide patches to adjust Automake to
configure.ac, and likewise for Libtool.
Pavel Why not Automake 1.4b?
Pavel
Hello, Earnie!
IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of automake
that isn't a released version. When I was learning automake, autoconf,
etc. I went about it by actually using the tools on themselves. Not
having a released version of automake would have been a
Akim Demaille wrote:
"Earnie" == Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Earnie IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of
Earnie automake that isn't a released version.
It seems to me that there is still a chance to have an Automake
release soon.
That would be
Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello, Earnie!
IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of automake
that isn't a released version. When I was learning automake, autoconf,
etc. I went about it by actually using the tools on themselves. Not
having a released version of
Earnie IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of
Earnie automake that isn't a released version.
Akim It seems to me that there is still a chance to have an Automake
Akim release soon.
That would be nice.
We could also do another automake beta release after the features
I think it is important that automake-using distributions use an
actual release and not the cvs automake.
I think that some of the free Unix/Linux distros use their own
patched version of automake which in turn is based on cvs automake
at some more or less random point in time. For my own
I guess you are slightly confused.
No, I'm not.
That's great :-)
egcs-update!? What's that?
Script developed by GCC developers in the EGCS days to simplify life for
those CVS users who didn't have the full list of up-to-date maintainer
tools. Now available by running
cvs -d
"Lars" == Lars Hecking [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars I think that some of the free Unix/Linux distros use their own
Lars patched version of automake which in turn is based on cvs automake
Lars at some more or less random point in time.
Yeah. Red Hat did that. Maybe other distributions
12 matches
Mail list logo
