|
From: | Dan Kegel |
Subject: | Re: please bring back program suffix for autoconf bin files |
Date: | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:12:35 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030211 |
Jens Petersen wrote:
[Dan Kegel wrote: why is there no /usr/bin/autoconf-2.57 in Red Hat 8.1beta?]The main reason for doing this was that autoconf-2.53 was appearing in spec files and this breaks of course everytime the Autoconf version is up'ed. So the thinking is: use "/usr/bin/autoconf" for the moving newer version and "/usr/bin/autoconf-2.13" for the old static one. I did put the idea forward upstream about adding API versioning to Autoconf like Automake has had since 1.6, but there was no response unfortunately. :-| It's anyway really too late to make such a change for the coming release now, but I guess there is nothing to stop you from making the symlink yourself. :)BTW, automake in Phoebe *does* seem to have the kind of suffixes I want, so it's just autoconf that's missing it currently.Yep, because it comes from upstream - since Automake 1.6 there has been API versioning in Automake.
Sigh. I saw your post three months ago ( http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2002-12/msg00029.html ) and didn't speak up then. I guess I should have! Thanks for the explanation. Autoconf people, it would be very helpful if autoconf instituted versioning support, i.e. a way for build scripts and the like to specify which version of autoconf to use. Normal developers won't need it, perhaps, but people like me who are trying to write a script to build fifty different open source packages from source would find it *very handy*. As you may know, Debian and Cygwin have both found this important enough to come up with their own way of doing it, but having different schemes for Debian, Cygwin, and the various Red Hats makes life difficult. A unified versioning scheme from the autoconf maintainers would help. It doesn't even need an autodetecting script; the "/usr/bin/autoconf is a symlink to the newest version" scheme would be fine. Thanks, Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |