From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24503 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2001 19:21:01 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 Jun 2001 19:21:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 24395 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2001 19:20:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14695 Received: (qmail 24353 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2001 19:20:47 -0000 Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:20:53 -0400 From: Clint Adams To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: zsh and autoconf-2.50 Message-ID: <20010603152053.A30211@dman.com> References: <002901c0eaa8$359841f0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> <20010601110558.A32662@dman.com> <3B1817C0.3080708@mow.siemens.ru> <1010603184301.ZM30412@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1010603184301.ZM30412@candle.brasslantern.com>; from schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com on Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 06:43:01PM +0000 > I suggest this because, upon further consideration, I don't want to > require zsh developers to install autoconf 2.50. They may need the > older version of autoconf for other packages that have not been updated > for the 2.50 changes. > > Thoughts? I think it's a good plan during this time when autoconf 2.50 is fresh, but I don't think effort should be expended to maintain compatibility with 2.13 in future. After all, it's neither impossible nor difficult for zsh developers to have multiple versions of autoconf on hand, should they be required.