Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
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 20:06:07 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Automake 1.5
Message-ID: <20010909200607.F11565@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <NFBBLOMHALONCDMPGBLFEELHCAAA DOT info AT rlsystems DOT net> <x6d7501qz7 DOT fsf AT no-such-thing-as-a DOT free-lunch DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> <20010909194259 DOT B11565 AT redhat DOT com> <3B9C0133 DOT 1090906 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3B9C0133.1090906@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 07:54:27PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>
>>FWIW, Chuck Wilson has also identified some incompatibilities between
>>the newest version of autoconf and libiberty's configure.in.
>>
>>I wonder if we should drop back to an older version for a while in the
>>cygwin distro.
>
>
>AAAGGGHHH!!!! Not you, too, Chris!
>
>The new autoconf and automake are necessary if we ever want to get 
>libtool to build dll's transparently.  That's the tradeoff.
>
>Permanent stasis with 2.13/1.4, or forward progression and some new 
>features (and bugfixes.  Did I mention bugfixes?) in the 2.52/1.5 
>versions.  But it means folks have to make the adjustment in a lot of 
>different packages -- including libiberty, gcc, etc.
>
>Again, *what* is the resistance?  *Why* don't folks want to upgrade -- 
>even when handed a patch?

If we can have a patched version of 2.52 that works fine with older
configure.in's then that's fine.

I'm concerned about the necessity of requiring one
configure.in/Makefile.am for working with "cygwin" and one for working
with the rest of the world.

I *would* like to have a libtool that works properly on Windows but we
have no control over all of the myriad other packages that apparently
need to be changed.

I just checked and even Red Hat's Rawhide distribution has not yet upgraded
to a newer autoconf.

I like using the newest versions of things, especially when they fix problems
on windows.  I don't like causing people unnecessary grief for Cygwin when
they don't have to (yet) suffer the grief on other platforms.

If I am understanding what's going on here correctly, it sounds like packages
that used to work on cygwin with older versions of autoconf now need to be
changed to accomodate our newer tools.  That would be ok if the rest of the
world was starting to upgrade but...  that's not happening yet, AFAICT.

I don't like this, but this is one of those situations where you have to choose
between the frying pan and the fire.  Neither choice is perfect.

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/