[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility? |
Date: |
Wed, 10 May 2006 07:08:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:02:11AM CEST:
> Ben Pfaff <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Any comments on whether this is a good idea?
>
> It's a good idea, yes. You could use 2.59c. Another possibility is
> that we could generate another prerelease; it might be a good idea to
> do one more before 2.60 comes out.
Yes. I'd like to do one of the "if nothing shows up, this will be 2.60
in a week" kind, if you agree. There are a handful of open points
though, will post a roundup presently (on autoconf-patches).
Cheers,
Ralf
- expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ben Pfaff, 2006/05/09
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Noah Misch, 2006/05/09
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ben Pfaff, 2006/05/09
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ben Pfaff, 2006/05/09
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Eric Blake, 2006/05/10
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Paul Eggert, 2006/05/10
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ben Pfaff, 2006/05/10
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ben Pfaff, 2006/05/13
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Paul Eggert, 2006/05/14
- Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ben Pfaff, 2006/05/14
Re: expected Autoconf 2.59 <-> 2.60 compatibility?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/05/10