> > So I stripped out libltdl's Makefile.in, configure, aclocal.m4 and > > force thosed to be regenerated with am-1.9, ac-2.59. Makefile.in no > > longer references the nonexistent 'mkinstalldirs' and the top-level > > dist/distcheck seems happy. > > Is this a sin I'm going to pay for? > > Should be perfectly fine. This feels like a bug to me, perhaps we should > have rolled the release with slightly older autotools, the release > announcement, it seems, *wrongly* promises that libtool can be used with > older tools.
Hi, I'd classify it as a 'nuance' before calling it a bug. :) The problem with rolling back to am-1.9-generated files is that the Makefile.in's reference 'automake-1.9' and 'aclocal-1.9' (from the 'missing' script arguments), which won't work for someone who only has 1.10. No elegant solution comes to mind yet. Wishful thinking would be to have the auto-regeneration commands be smarter and attempt autotool version detection, perhaps through configure-time detection? Could produce unexpected interactions though... > I am not going to release 1.5.26 for this though :) Not critical for sure, but perhaps worth noting somewhere in the docs? That libltdl's build support files are generated with version X, but the above steps can be done to regenerate with version Y. I can see this being applicable to other similar packages that can be shipped as subpackages. David David Fang Computer Systems Laboratory Electrical & Computer Engineering Cornell University http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/ -- (2400 baud? Netscape 3.0?? lynx??? No problem!) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool