From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8946 invoked by alias); 25 Dec 2002 02:55:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8934 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2002 02:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO disaster.jaj.com) (66.93.21.106) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 25 Dec 2002 02:55:57 -0000 Received: (from phil@localhost) by disaster.jaj.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) id gBP2tiS15372; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 21:55:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 06:12:00 -0000 From: Phil Edwards To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Nathanael Nerode , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, newlib@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Planning for the Autoconf 2.5x transition? Message-ID: <20021224215544.A15340@disaster.jaj.com> References: <20021224055606.GA957@doctormoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from aoliva@redhat.com on Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 12:47:04AM -0200 X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01423.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 25, 2002 at 12:47:04AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This is possible, but it takes some additional effort because of > caching issues. The one that comes to mind is that some early 2.5x > versions of autoconf [...] > I'm not sure this was actually `fixed' in newer versions of > autoconf 2.5x. If we're going to jump to something more recent than 2.13, we may as well require a /fixed/ recent version. Put another way, I'm assuming and suggesting that when we talk about "2.5x and later" we're doing so only because we haven't decided what x will be. /Not/ because we're going to try and support all versions of x>=0. Phil -- I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met. - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002