Re: [gentoo-user] Why autoconf?

2005-09-12 Thread Nick Rout
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:26:45 -0400 Dave Nebinger wrote: > It's really not a big deal to get upset over. No but I am glad it has been explored, as i had been wondering the same thing. >The autoconf and automake > packages are pretty small, so they don't take up a lot of disk nor do they > re

Re: [gentoo-user] Why autoconf?

2005-09-12 Thread Dave Nebinger
Why the hick are there so much versions of autoconf (in system)? Well, somewhere in the [Nasty bug..] thread someone (again) mentioned, that different packaged depend on different versions of autoconf. That's NOT the truth for building a package. You're making some assumptions here... Part of th

Re: [gentoo-user] Why autoconf?

2005-09-12 Thread Daniel Drake
Frank Schafer wrote: Why the hick are there so much versions of autoconf (in system)? Well, somewhere in the [Nasty bug..] thread someone (again) mentioned, that different packaged depend on different versions of autoconf. That's NOT the truth for building a package. Autoconf and automake provid

[gentoo-user] Why autoconf?

2005-09-12 Thread Frank Schafer
Hi list, I've some suggestions. Having taken the burden of initial installation I wonder: Why the hick are there so much versions of autoconf (in system)? Well, somewhere in the [Nasty bug..] thread someone (again) mentioned, that different packaged depend on different versions of autoconf. That'