Would that make it incomatible with 2.13?

Probably. I don't see a problem with that though.

I rather see a system that finds and uses autoconf-2.13, actually. I'm not too fond of the modern autoconf's.

Why?

/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)

Previous text:

2003-01-09 13:48: Subject: autoheader

---

Would that make it incomatible with 2.13?

I rather see a system that finds and uses autoconf-2.13, actually. I'm not too fond of the modern autoconf's.

/ Mirar

But you don't object to using the language "autoconf2.50" per se? It shouldn't be too much trouble to make run_autoconf check whether the binary "autoconf" implements the language "autoconf2.50" or not, and bail out if it doesn't. Other packages tend to do this.

/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)

Previous text:

2003-01-09 13:53: Subject: autoheader

---

I don't like the idea of incompatible changes in a computer language. Autoconf is used like a language. If it were a new language, say "autoconf3", or autodetected so it always used the correct backwards compatible version, I wouldn't mind.

/ Mirar

No, I don't mind the new ideas. It's only the enforcing and version confusion. It's also very hard to use autoconf to find the correct autoconf version, so you're back at /bin/sh stuff.

On my system, I have:

autoconf -> ../lib/autoconf/ac-wrapper.pl autoconf-2.13 autoconf-2.53a autoconf-2.54

It might or might not be a standard, but it should be possible to let run_autoconfig (and configure for Makefile) to check for autoconf-<correct version>.

"autoconf" is a perl script. I haven't investigated it further.

/ Mirar

Previous text:

2003-01-09 14:12: Subject: autoheader

---

But you don't object to using the language "autoconf2.50" per se? It shouldn't be too much trouble to make run_autoconf check whether the binary "autoconf" implements the language "autoconf2.50" or not, and bail out if it doesn't. Other packages tend to do this.

/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)

Mandrake has a wrapper too:

# Executes the correct autoconf version. # # - defaults to autoconf-2.13 # - runs autoconf-2.5x if it exists and... # - envvar WANT_AUTOCONF_2_5 is set to `1' # -or- # - configure.ac is present # -or- # - `configure.in' contains AC_PREREQ and the value's 3 first letters # are stringwise greater than '2.1' # -or- # - `configure' is already present and was generated by autoconf greater than '2.1' # -or- # - `Makefile.in' was generated by automake-1.6 or superior, which specificall y needs autoconf-2.5x

/ David Hedbor

Previous text:

2003-01-09 14:40: Subject: autoheader

---

No, I don't mind the new ideas. It's only the enforcing and version confusion. It's also very hard to use autoconf to find the correct autoconf version, so you're back at /bin/sh stuff.

On my system, I have:

autoconf -> ../lib/autoconf/ac-wrapper.pl autoconf-2.13 autoconf-2.53a autoconf-2.54

It might or might not be a standard, but it should be possible to let run_autoconfig (and configure for Makefile) to check for autoconf-<correct version>.

"autoconf" is a perl script. I haven't investigated it further.

/ Mirar

Indeed. I can't speak for other such scripts however. :)

/ David Hedbor

Previous text:

2003-01-09 20:27: Subject: autoheader

---

From the comments from the wrapper script you included in your other post, it looks like AC_PREREQ might do the trick as well. Renames are not handled well by CVS... :-)

/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)