Re: problem with bootstrapping coreutils with automake 1.10.1

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:

> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 1.10a is deemed (at least by automake and m4) to indicate a newer
>> version than 1.10.1.  counter-intuitive?  This matters because
>> sort --version now disagrees with that ordering:
>>
>>     $ printf 'automake-1.10%s\n' .1 a|sort -V
>>     automake-1.10a
>>     automake-1.10.1
>
> Sigh.  I suppose we should get to the bottom of this.  GNU tools should
> agree on how to compare version numbers.  Personally, I would have
> expected the behavior of sort -V; I'm surprised that other tools
> disagree.
>
>> This stems from the new gnulib filevercmp module.
>>
>> There's actually a minor dependency in coreutils on the
>> newer automake.
>
> By "newer" do you mean "newer than 1.10.1"?

Yes.  1.10a is newer.

> If so, do you recall which
> post-1.10.1 feature is being used by coreutils?  If that feature is

Two things come to mind, but there may be more.
Neither of these is a show-stopper:
One change fixes a "make distcheck" failure.
Another that is merely an optimization is the fact that
it now relies on latest automake for efficient multi-file
installation, i.e., install f1 f2 f3 ... destdir, rather
than running install separately for each installed file.

> important I suppose I should upgrade to automake 1.10a. (I assume 1.10a
> refers the latest bleeding-edge version checked out from Savannah?)

Yes.