Re: What is going on with releases, mailing lists?

[Pavel Roskin]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:

> >>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  Paul> Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> writes:
>  >> I've seen an announcement in address@hidden that Automake
>  >> 1.7.9 has been released with Autoconf 2.59....
>  >> OK, I give up.  I used to be an active co-maintainer of Autoconf,
>  >> and now I cannot get the latest public release!
>
>  Paul> Clearly Autoconf 2.59 has not been released.  I don't know why 2.59
>  Paul> was mentioned in the Automake 1.7.9 announcement, nor do I know why
>  Paul> the Autoconf CVS ChangeLog says "Version 2.59".  However, since 2.59
>  Paul> has not yet been released, I assume that possibly other fixes will be
>  Paul> integrated before 2.59 comes sout.
>
> Since the CVS is tagged, the ChangeLog and NEWS updated, and the
> 2.59 diff posted I think it's pretty clear that Akim intended to
> release 2.59.  (I remember I urged him to, so we don't last with
> incorrect abs_* value too long.)  Tagging the cvs only occurs at
> the end of `make cvs-dist'.  It was so clear that I though it
> had been announced, hence the mention in Automake's NEWS.
>
> It's likely that Akim did all this in an hurry (the incorrect
> date in NEWS tends to support that) and forgot to upload and
> announce it.  Beside, lrde.epita.fr had some network problems
> lately, so maybe he could simply not upload it.
>
> I can see the GPG-signed tarballs of Autoconf 2.59 in Akim's
> account.  But since Akim should be back tonight or tomorrow, I
> guess it's better we wait for him.

Thanks for clarification.  But let's look at the configure script inside
ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/automake/automake-1.7.9.tar.bz2

#! /bin/sh
# Guess values for system-dependent variables and create Makefiles.
# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.59 for GNU Automake 1.7.9.

Maybe if Autoconf 2.59 has not been released, the real release should be
using Automake 1.7.9 for recursiveness :-)

Well, it looks like things are not that bad as they seemed this morning.

P.S. Wrong autoconf-maintainers address is also my fault.  I think it
should be correct now.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin