Lars Hecking wrote: > Bob Friesenhahn writes: > >>On 8 Oct 2002, Akim Demaille wrote: >> >>>There is one big question which must be answered first: will it have >>>to be Autoconf 2.13 compatible? >>> >>>I *strongly* suggest that it must not. It should AC_PREREQ 2.54 >>>immediately. Then, I'm fine with checking the M4 code and making it >>>up to date. If needed, I'll wrap a 2.55 with whatever is needed to >>>have Libtool work better with Autoconf. >> >>I agree. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use an antique >>version of Autoconf which dates from 1996. > > > Because it works? In any case, it's the respective maintainer's choice. > > Making autoconf incompatible with previous versions of itself while not > upping the major release number at the same time was a pretty bad move IMHO. >
Two wrongs a right does not make. I.E.: I believe it wrong for any maintainter to not move forward with the current versions of autotools regardless of the maintainer's reasons for not doing so. FWIR, Akim and other developers tried hard to maintain [back|bug]ward compatibility. But, some of the incompatibility was ill formed autoconf syntax so that incompatibility wasn't maintained and instead a better parser was put into place. Conform, it's the right thing to do. Earnie. _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
