Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3BAA395C.20B04AD8@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:45:48 -0400 From: Charles Wilson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Autotools; new versions References: <3BAA33FD DOT 9C1B704C AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010920143410 DOT B5666 AT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:22:53PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > >Since there are incompatibilities between > > autoconf-2.13 and autoconf-2.5x > > automake-1.4 and automake-1.5 > > > >and most (cygwin-external) projects have been slow and/or resistant to > >migrate to the newer versions, > > > >and cgf doesn't want to "push the envelope" on autotools from cygwin > >(let other projects migrate FIRST, then we follow) > > > >and libtool/autoconf/automake must all share the same prefix (usr or > >usr/local or...) > > Robert suggested that debian has a wrapper that tries to infer which > version of autoconf to run. > > Is this something worth considering? Yes. But I think the requirement for separate install prefixes still remains. I don't know much about debian, tho, so take that with a large chunk of salt. --Chuck