Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 7, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree, and I think there is just no point in
discussing about it, we will never agree. Given your point of view, I
see no interest at all in implementing trace support in Automake if it
is still to deal with users who don't want to upgrade.
Under this condition, I will definitely quit the group. I'm OK with
providing reasonable backward compatibility, but I'm tired (to remain
somewhat polite) of wasting my time in details of the past.
I am *not* interested in helping obsolescent users, I'm interested in
providing better, simpler tools. If that's not the deal here, then
fine, I quit. And you know this not a threat, this is just my point
of view. If my conditions are not accepted, then it's simple, I have
nothing to do here.