[kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version

gonzo Robert.N.Gonzalez at williams.edu
Fri Jan 24 04:49:01 PST 2003

Hi guys.

> I'd like to do another round of asking who's using
> what version of auto* tools, and if upgrading kaffe to
> use the latest versions would be desirable or cause
> problems. See this thread for the last discussion of
> the issues involved:
> http://www.kaffe.org/pipermail/kaffe/2002-December/028418.html

i'm using autoconf 2.13 and automake 1.4p6 on Debian/unstable.  i do have
autoconf2.50 on my box, though the command "autoconf" refers to 2.13 by

> I'd like to raise the discussion again, because
> a) Pat has 'leaped ahead' of automake 1.4 and autoconf
> 2.13 on his system.
> b) Dan has been using latest auto* tools for a while
> (and libtool from CVS) without much problems.
> c) Tim doesn't like to mess with auto* tools :)
> d) I'd prefer to use the latest & greatest autotools
> for a few reasons, one of them being able to merge
> Dan's libtool-from-CVS patch.

i read the previous thread and am a little unclear as to what advantages
autoconf 2.56+ and automake 1.7 have over the older, more prevalent
versions.  however, since i'm not a great maker of build files i'll take
your word as to their superiority.

for me, snagging the latest versions via apt (i use debian) isn't really a
problem, so i wouldn't mind the transition.  i would imagine that, for
most users, getting the latest and greatest versions of auto*, though it
might require a 5 minute delay before tinkering with their latest CVS copy
of kaffe, wouldn't be a huge problem, so i would say go for the upgrade.

i've done a quick survey of the dependencies of the old auto* vs. the new
auto* and they both rely on the same versions of libc and other libraries,
so users wanting to compile kaffe would only have to install the latest
auto* and not a ton of other new libaries as well.


More information about the kaffe mailing list