[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG
|
From: |
Diego Elio Pettenò |
|
Subject: |
Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG |
|
Date: |
Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:53:38 -0700 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120720 Thunderbird/14.0 |
On 21/08/2012 07:32, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> do you think the transition would have been less painful (I really
> hope the answer is yes, of course).
>From a distribution point of view... it wouldn't have been any less
painful. It would have meant we'd have even more packages using
autoconf-2.1 than we still have right now....
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
address@hidden — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
- Re: [PATCH] build: support and require Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: [PATCH] build: support and require Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Automake vs. Automake-NG (was: Re: [PATCH] build: support and require Automake-NG), Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG,
Diego Elio Pettenò <=
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21
- Re: Automake vs. Automake-NG, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/08/21