[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch

From: Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:43:41 +0000

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 11:15, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> Albert Chin wrote:
> | On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:54:28PM +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> |
> |>This patch kind of fell out of me wanting libtool to do
> |>automake-like version mismatch checking at runtime, and
> |>autoconf-like AC_PREREQ version-minima.
> |>
> |>If you guys like this, I'll rewrite the docs, update the test
> |>directories and resubmit.
> |
> |
> | Does your LT_INIT_LIBTOOL() error out for invalid options?
> No it doesn't.
> I'll add code for that in the next submission.
In the interests of forward compatibility, it probably shouldn't *error*

If in 1.6.2 we add a new option, we necessarily want 1.6 to suddenly
stop working because people have included the new one.

We know that Autoconf doesn't error when unknown configure arguments are
given, what does Automake do if you give AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE an unknown
option?  (afaict it doesn't)

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]