On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > 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. > > Deliberately introducing design incompatibilities simply encourages people > to use other tools.
I developed/maintain the configure script for ImageMagick. While the total lines in the generated configure script is meaningless, it is less than 1/2 of what you report for PHP, and PHP's configure script is 4-8X larger than typical configure scripts for other large packages (e.g. 4X larger than the configure script for OpenSSH). This seems odd to me. Having adopted every new Autoconf which has been released, I can happily say that as long as you avoid using undocumented Autoconf internals, it is not particularly difficult to make the minor modifications required to stay current. I don't believe that the decision by some factions to stick with a particular Autoconf software version for the rest of time should be allowed to hinder the development of Libtool. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
