* Re-generated auto files?
@ 2004-12-06 21:38 Jim Blandy
2004-12-06 21:40 ` Jim Blandy
2004-12-07 1:37 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2004-12-06 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rda
It looks like there's some skew in the versions of the autotools being
used in the RDA tree. Would anyone mind if I cleaned that up?
The top level configure (which I'm not suggesting we mess with) is
generated by autoconf 2.13. Within rda, we seem to be consistently
using automake 1.6.3, but a mix of autoconf 2.53 and 2.57. I'd like
to use automake 1.9.3 and autoconf 2.59 (the latest versions) for
everything.
The comments in rda/unix/config.in says it's maintained by hand, but
the comments and ChangeLog don't explain why. If folks can give me
more details about the problem, I'd be willing to try to make that
auto-generated again.
2002-01-15 Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
* config.in (Generated automatically comment): Revise to note
that this file was generated automatically at one time, but is
no longer.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re-generated auto files?
2004-12-06 21:38 Re-generated auto files? Jim Blandy
@ 2004-12-06 21:40 ` Jim Blandy
2004-12-07 1:37 ` Kevin Buettner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2004-12-06 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rda
Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> writes:
> The top level configure (which I'm not suggesting we mess with) is
> generated by autoconf 2.13. Within rda, we seem to be consistently
> using automake 1.6.3, but a mix of autoconf 2.53 and 2.57. I'd like
> to use automake 1.9.3 and autoconf 2.59 (the latest versions) for
> everything.
I neglected to mention that rda/win32 uses a mix of automake 1.4and
1.4-p5, and autoconf 2.13. I'd be happy to upgrade and check that,
too.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re-generated auto files?
2004-12-06 21:38 Re-generated auto files? Jim Blandy
2004-12-06 21:40 ` Jim Blandy
@ 2004-12-07 1:37 ` Kevin Buettner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2004-12-07 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: rda
On 06 Dec 2004 16:37:35 -0500
Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> wrote:
> It looks like there's some skew in the versions of the autotools being
> used in the RDA tree. Would anyone mind if I cleaned that up?
Please do!
> The top level configure (which I'm not suggesting we mess with) is
> generated by autoconf 2.13. Within rda, we seem to be consistently
> using automake 1.6.3, but a mix of autoconf 2.53 and 2.57. I'd like
> to use automake 1.9.3 and autoconf 2.59 (the latest versions) for
> everything.
>
> The comments in rda/unix/config.in says it's maintained by hand, but
> the comments and ChangeLog don't explain why. If folks can give me
> more details about the problem, I'd be willing to try to make that
> auto-generated again.
I don't remember the details, if in fact I ever knew them. Anyway, I'm
all for having this file automatically generated again, if possible.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-12-07 1:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-12-06 21:38 Re-generated auto files? Jim Blandy
2004-12-06 21:40 ` Jim Blandy
2004-12-07 1:37 ` Kevin Buettner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).