Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 19:52:09 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Automake 1.5 Message-ID: <20010909195209.D11565@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3B9BFF80 DOT 9020504 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B9BFF80.9020504@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 07:47:12PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >I even submitted patches for libiberty to support both versions, but it >was more or less ignored. It seems the response was "we're sticking >with 2.13" > >What? Forever? > >I don't understand. Help me? I don't understand the sticking with 2.13 response either. It seems like there is a disconnect between the autotools maintainers and the maintainers of the packages that they're trying to help. However, it seems to me to be most politic for cygwin to follow the herd rather than to lead it in cases like this. If no one is moving to 2.5*, for whatever reason, then maybe we shouldn't be using the latest and greatest either. When 90% of the world has switched to the newer tools, then we can switch. At that point we'll have a stronger case for switching, I think. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/