Hello Bruno, Paul, * Bruno Haible wrote on Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 02:59:24PM CEST: > Paul Eggert writes: > > > The code currently assumes Autoconf 2.60 but could be backported easily > > I think it's important to leave people a choice. Autoconf 2.60 will have > different bugs than autoconf-2.59, which had different bugs than 2.57. > I think it's fine to now drop support for autoconf-2.57 and -2.58. But > forcing people to using a specific release is creating constraints that > are weird to satisfy. For example, if someone wants to keep using > po/Makefile.in.in from gettext-0.14.x, at first sight he cannot upgrade > to autoconf-2.60 without getting warnings.
Good point. > (OK, he can if he uses AC_DATAROOTDIR_CHECKED, but maybe he then falls > into some bugs we don't know about yet.) We know (well, we may not state it explicitly enough) that AC_DATAROOTDIR_CHECKED does not only turn off the warnings, but also the safeguard substitutions. Which is why there is a recommendation to only use it after a package audit for datarootdir. Setting the macro with gettext-0.14.x will break packages. > A few years ago, the required versions of glibc and gcc were tied; > likewise the versions of autoconf and automake were constrained. Automake-1.10 will require Autoconf-2.60. I think this is not easy to avoid. But luckily, it seems like it won't be such a huge burden... Cheers, Ralf
