* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Le lundi 01 octobre 2007 à 20:09 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > > This is exactly the point I've been trying to make for a long time, > > about things like autoconf and automake1.x, and why you should > > build-depend on them and run them every time. Because it proves that > > we are fully self-hosting, and the main reason _not_ to do it is the > > fear that we might _not_ actually be self-hosting. Which is something > > I believe we've promised our users, implicitly if not explicitly. > > Given that especially autoconf introduces serious incompatibilities > between minor releases, this is simply not feasible because it would > trigger hundreds of FTBFS errors each time a new autoconf version is > uploaded.
s/autoconf/automake/g The same is true of automake. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
