On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 8:05 PM Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On 10/05/2020 02:10, Karl Berry wrote:
> > +Although we would like to remove this function from Automake, since it's
> > +not used, that would break older versions of Autoconf, which seems
> > +gratuitious. So we leave it, unchanged.
>
> Auto
On 10/05/2020 02:10, Karl Berry wrote:
+Although we would like to remove this function from Automake, since it's
+not used, that would break older versions of Autoconf, which seems
+gratuitious. So we leave it, unchanged.
Autoconf has its own copy of this function, so why would it be affected
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 6:10 PM Karl Berry wrote:
>
> Probably best to leave it, as is, and mark it as known-to-be-unused at
> least via comment.
>
> How does the text below look for an explanation?
Very good! Thanks for dealing with this.
Two suggestions below.
> (By the way, I noticed t
Probably best to leave it, as is, and mark it as known-to-be-unused at
least via comment.
How does the text below look for an explanation?
(By the way, I noticed that FileUtils.pm, unlike the other *.pm in
lib/Automake, doesn't have an =over 4 ... =back around all the other
items, causing
