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
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
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
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'
4 matches
Mail list logo