Jean-Marc Lasgouttes writes: > Enrico> What about autogen.sh in LyX assuming that it will work with > Enrico> autoconf 2.59 but will not work with 2.59e ?
The difference between this autotools stuff and gcc is that the autotools stuff is used only by developers. Newer versions of gcc can/will be used by package maintainers of standard LyX releases. > Personally, I think we should only discriminate against version that > are known to break. But it is just me :) No, that makes sense to me also. However, writing tests that sh will understand isn't trivial. It's easy for us humans to confirm that our software meets the bar: echo "LyX requires automake >= 1.9" echo "LyX requires autoconf >= 2.52" Enabling sh to do so is a difficult problem IMO. I'd suggest that we keep with the present system. IIRC, Lars' arguments against autoconf 2.59[a-e] were that they were actually pre-releases of autoconf 2.60. If 2.60 has now been released then they should all be supported, no? Why not change the script to: case $autoversion in + *' '2.60) + *' '2.59[a-e]) *' '2.5[2-9]) EXTRA_ACINCLUDE_FILES="lyxinclude25x.m4" ;; *) echo "This autoconf version is not supported by LyX." - echo "LyX only supports autoconf 2.5[2-9]." + echo "LyX only supports autoconf >= 2.52." exit 1 ;; esac The 2.59[a-e] line can be removed when these cutting-edge distributions upgrade to 2.60. Incidentally, is there any reason for the "25x" in "lyxinclude25x.m4" anymore now that we no longer support configure.in? Angus