Re: new vs old autoconf / Re: checking for non-standard headers

[Thomas E. Dickey]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Guido Draheim wrote:

>
>
> Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Guido Draheim wrote:
> >
> >
> >>of another file. In all other cases, I'm quite fine... what features
> >>are overdue by your records, Thomas?
> >
> >
> > I suppose you could look at the cvs version and answer your own question.
> > I recall seeing a half-dozen serious bugs reported - and fixed - since
> > 2.57, making the difference at least as much as from 2.54 to 2.57.  (2.55
> > & 2.56 were blunders, of course - read the changelog).
> >
>
> Hmm, I might wonder what your "serious bugs" are, it looks like a lot of
> those are portability fixes, which is not quite the same as serious problems

autoconf is supposed to be portable (if you think another consideration
is more important, that's your opinion, but I don't have any use for it).

-- 
T.E.Dickey <address@hidden>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net