automake
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name.


From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name.
Date: 07 Feb 2001 17:57:55 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake)

Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:

> On Feb  7, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > I am referring to other applications depending upon Autoconf such as
> > Automake, for which it is perfectly reasonable to require a version of
> > Autoconf which is released.
> 
> But I disagree it's perfectly reasonable to require the latest
> released version of autoconf just because we can.  For a long time,
> automake was still tested with Perl 4, just because it could support
> Perl 4, without forcing its users to upgrade.  However, as soon as
> autoconf 2.50 is available (or even earlier), automake may want to use
> its new features.  AC_VERSION_CASE would be a good thing in this case.
> Ditto for libtool.  And for any other tool that wants to impose as
> little as possible onto its users.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree, and I think there is just no point in
discussing about it, we will never agree.  Given your point of view, I
see no interest at all in implementing trace support in Automake if it
is still to deal with users who don't want to upgrade.

Under this condition, I will definitely quit the group.  I'm OK with
providing reasonable backward compatibility, but I'm tired (to remain
somewhat polite) of wasting my time in details of the past.

I am *not* interested in helping obsolescent users, I'm interested in
providing better, simpler tools.  If that's not the deal here, then
fine, I quit.  And you know this not a threat, this is just my point
of view.  If my conditions are not accepted, then it's simple, I have
nothing to do here.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]