Re: Moving to Automake 1.4a

[Earnie Boyd]

Pavel Roskin wrote:
> 
> Hello, Earnie!
> 
> > IMO, it would be undesirable to have autoconf use a version of automake
> > that isn't a released version.  When I was learning automake, autoconf,
> > etc. I went about it by actually using the tools on themselves.  Not
> > having a released version of automake would have been a stumbling block
> > as at the time I didn't have a cvs client and wouldn't have known that
> > it was possible to get the automake source from a CVS server even if I
> > had a cvs client.
> 
> I guess you are slightly confused. 

No, I'm not.

> Makefile.in generated by the CVS
> Automake will be included in all releases of Autoconf. 

Yes, I not this, as well as the Makefile.am.  What I wouldn't be able to
do without the CVS version is recreate Makefile.in.  I can just imagine
the plethora of email to this list.

> Moreover,
> Makefile.in are even included in the CVS repository of Autoconf. You
> shouldn't need CVS Automake to build CVS Autoconf (but you may need some
> script like egcs-update to ensure that Makefile.in's are newer that their
> dependencies after CVS update).
> 

egcs-update!?  What's that?

> Another proposal was to modify Automake to use some new features in
> Autoconf. It doesn't mean that every project using the latest Autoconf
> (CVS or otherwise) will be required to use an unreleased version of
> Automake.
> 

Their intertwinedness warrants a merger of projects. ;)

Cheers,
Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com