> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Actually, I'm in favor of this. There are some barriers to doing
Tom> it, but nothing very hard. I don't think we'll do it with the
Tom> next release though.
Akim> I'm afraid it would become unmaintainable, with no means to really
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> 1. Merge the autoconf and automake packages into one package.
Ralf> This would
Tom> Actually, I'm in favor of this. There are some barriers to doing
Tom> it, but nothing very h
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. I am not sure if recommending share/aclocal- for third party
> macros is a good idea:
> * Currently hardly managable on the user-side => If at all, then some
> auto*tool should installing *.m4's to share/aclocal-
> automatically (data_ACLOCALS = fo
Am Mit, 2002-01-16 um 18.06 schrieb Havoc Pennington:
>
> Jens Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -m4datadir = $(datadir)/aclocal
> > +m4datadir = $(datadir)/aclocal-@VERSION@
>
[..]
>
> So if the change is done this way, we need a commitment from the
> autoconf maintainers that share/
> "Havoc" == Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Havoc> That is, it makes sense to put "automake-1.5" in a script or
Havoc> spec file, but not to put "automake-1.5.1p5" in there because
Havoc> it'll change with annoying frequency and the micro version is
Havoc> not relevant, only the
Hi,
Look, I think everyone is overcomplicating the problem here. It's
really really really really simple. Anything that is compatible has
the same name; anything that isn't compatible has a different
name. Because from the point of view of an interface user (an app), a
compatible thing implement
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Havoc> in the spec file I rename automake to automake-1.4,
> Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.4, automake to automake-1.5,
> Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.5, and symlink automake to
> Havoc> automake-1.5.
>
> Doesn't `configure --program-suffix=-1.
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> My current thinking is that we would name the installed version
Tom> and the install directories after the "install version". For
Tom> anything in the 1.5 series (1.5.1, 1.5-p1, 1.5c, whatever), this
Tom> would be "1.5". Then we would g
Just a thought ...
Keep different versions of the autotools
(autoconf, automake, and libtool) in
different autoconf directories
(for eg, autoconf-2.52, automake-1.5b,
and libtool-1.4d could be installed
in /local/autoconf-2.52).
In addition, each package has
its own bootstrap script that invokes
===
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This solution keeps $prefix/bin fairly uncluttered, moving the many
> scripts below their own tree under $prefix/shared/. I think this is
> what's done by the autoconf & automake wrappers used by cygnus, but
I'm
> not
On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 22:38, Ted Irons wrote:
> Just a thought ...
Might as well put in my .02 Euro as well.
I kinda like a gcc-style approach; i.e. install the actual automake/...
scripts as $prefix/share/automake/version/automake. Then have a
$prefix/bin/automake that checks for some option t
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> 1. Merge the autoconf and automake packages into one package.
Ralf> This would
Actually, I'm in favor of this. There are some barriers to doing it,
but nothing very hard. I don't think we'll do it with the next
release though.
R
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tom> My current thinking is that we would name the installed version
> Tom> and the install directories after the "install version". For
> Tom> anything in the 1.5 series (1.5.1, 1.5-p1, 1.5c, wha
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe `automake' should not be a symlink but a script that
> > select the right automake version to use for a project.
>
> I heard Debian has had poor results with that, b
Am Son, 2002-01-13 um 22.14 schrieb Tom Tromey:
> > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tom> But I'm not as sure about renaming the executables by default. I
> Tom> think I'd prefer to simply install as `automake', and let package
> Tom> maintainers use `--program-suffix=-1.5
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> But I'm not as sure about renaming the executables by default. I
Tom> think I'd prefer to simply install as `automake', and let package
Tom> maintainers use `--program-suffix=-1.5' (or equivalent) in their
Tom> spec files. What do you t
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This seems to be the minimum required to allow parallel installs
> of Automake. However doing only this makes unsafe to use
> versions installed that way, due to the rebuild rules issue you
> pointed out: using automake-1.5 is useless if the re
[...]
Tom> I think renaming the directories in $(datadir) is fine.
Tom> But I'm not as sure about renaming the executables by
Tom> default. I think I'd prefer to simply install as
Tom> `automake', and let package maintainers use
Tom> `--program-suffix=-1.5' (or equivalent) in their spec
To
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doesn't `configure --program-suffix=-1.5' work?
It probably would, sure. I just didn't think of it.
> Would it be the job of `make install' to handle this symlink?
> If yes, how should it be updated? Say I install
> Automake-1.5 *after* Aut
> From: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: automake parallel install stuff
> Date: 08 Jan 2002 18:34:50 -0500
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if we could convince you and the autoconf guys to think
> about making i
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> => IMO, this patch is one alternative towards allowing parallel
> installation of _automake_, but does not help much wrt. the actual
> autotool-issues "Joe Occasional Installer" will meet (eg. when building
> GNOME modules).
>
I agree there are oth
> "Havoc" == Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Havoc> I'm wondering if we could convince you and the autoconf guys to
Havoc> think about making incompatible autotools releases install in
Havoc> parallel.
I think this idea makes sense. It does seem apparent that we need to
let peo
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would require to change all packages providing aclocal/ macros of
> their own, i.e. is not feasible at present time, IMHO.
It can be done slowly if you continue to search datadir/aclocal for
now, and also search the versioned directories. Just de
Hi,
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you mean by "versioned executables"?
>
The bindir/automake-1.4, bindir/automake-1.5 files.
> I think renaming the directories in $(datadir) is fine. But I'm not
> as sure about renaming the executables by default. I think I'd prefer
> to
[...]
Havoc> in the spec file I rename automake to automake-1.4,
Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.4, automake to automake-1.5,
Havoc> aclocal to aclocal-1.5, and symlink automake to
Havoc> automake-1.5.
Doesn't `configure --program-suffix=-1.5' work? (To rename the
binaries, I mean. The directo
Am Fre, 2002-01-11 um 03.52 schrieb Havoc Pennington:
>
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > => IMO, this patch is one alternative towards allowing parallel
> > installation of _automake_, but does not help much wrt. the actual
> > autotool-issues "Joe Occasional Installer" will meet
Hi,
Tom asked me to repost this to the list. I'm not subscribed, so please
cc if you want to hear from me.
Thanks,
Havoc
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I'm wondering if we could convince you and the autoconf guys to think
about making incompatible autotools releases install in parallel. I
just
27 matches
Mail list logo
