On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The argument was that they weren't required in BLFS, however, > since it's been proven that they *are* required in BLFS (and > boy aren't we lucky that maintainers use semi-recent packages) > you go back to the "not required in LFS" crutch.
As I said, we are lucky that the packages that need to regenerate files using autotools have syntax that is compatible with the latest autotools release. > Please, answer me this, what is the harm in keeping libtool, > automake and autoconf in LFS? Why make these common, everyday > packages that most everybody (exceptions noted) *expects* to > have installed, be in BLFS? If the packages are installed they should be installed the way they are being installed by other distros (i.e. multiple incompatible versions in parallel). Automake 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 are not upgrades in the exact sense. They are similar to the glib and gtk where in some sense glib-2.x is an upgrade to glib-1.2.x, but in reality there are different pacakges. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
