[kaffe] Re: [kaffe] Upgrading autotools requirements to a more recent version
jim at kaffe.org
Sat Jan 25 09:11:02 PST 2003
Nobody likes to mess with the auto* tools.
How about if we put together a separate small "toolchain"
package that developers can install, which contains versions
of the auto* tools that can be installed in an non-intrusive
location. We'd release a new toolchain tarball periodically.
Then anybody would be able to update the configure scripts.
A more controversial move would be to remove the
autogenerated bits from CVS - then people building from
CVS would be forced to use autogen.sh and the toolchain.
I'm interested in what CVS users think about that. I think
we could meet the needs of casual CVS users by just doing
more frequent releases.
Personally, I think we should continue to check in the
autogenerated bits (eg. configure and the Makefile.in's)
for the time being.
> 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:
> 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've CC:ed Pat, Tim and Dan because they've sent in
> patches for the build system recently, but I'd like to
> hear everyone else's opinion, too.
> best regards,
> dalibor topic
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> kaffe mailing list
> kaffe at kaffe.org
More information about the kaffe