G�tz Waschk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > b) we have a script in place to allow 1.4 and 1.6 to co-exist don't we? > > No, you're mixing this up with autoconf2.5 and autoconf.
Yep. I know that when I have time I should try to have a way or another to have both versions of automake coexist (since mainstream authors are too dumb^Werhm to provide a compatibility mode or even the old code selectable by an envvar or something). That said, I'm not anymore a big fan of that autoconf/automake way of doing things, since I've noticed that many times re-generating the output from autoconf or automake will lead to problems when the versions are not exactly the same, the version of libtool or other misc strange things. I tend to now patch directly the Makefile.in similar files; of course the patches needs to be re-done when upstream release changes, and it's not optimal. But it removes the requirement on autoconf/automake for the build, and is less dangerous w/ respect to what I explained above. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
