[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name.
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name. |
Date: |
07 Feb 2001 09:46:26 -0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) |
On Feb 7, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> I am referring to other applications depending upon Autoconf such as
> Automake, for which it is perfectly reasonable to require a version of
> Autoconf which is released.
But I disagree it's perfectly reasonable to require the latest
released version of autoconf just because we can. For a long time,
automake was still tested with Perl 4, just because it could support
Perl 4, without forcing its users to upgrade. However, as soon as
autoconf 2.50 is available (or even earlier), automake may want to use
its new features. AC_VERSION_CASE would be a good thing in this case.
Ditto for libtool. And for any other tool that wants to impose as
little as possible onto its users.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
- AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Pavel Roskin, 2001/02/05
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/05
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Pavel Roskin, 2001/02/05
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/06
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Alexandre Oliva, 2001/02/06
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/07
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name.,
Alexandre Oliva <=
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/07
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Pavel Roskin, 2001/02/07
Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Tom Tromey, 2001/02/05