From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1187 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 07:36:34 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Jun 2001 07:36:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 24277 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2001 07:36:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14703 Received: (qmail 24264 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 07:36:20 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: zsh and autoconf-2.50 In-Reply-To: <1010603184301.ZM30412@candle.brasslantern.com> from Bart Schaefer at "Jun 3, 2001 06:43:01 pm" To: Bart Schaefer Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:36:27 +0100 (BST) CC: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Bart Schaefer wrote: >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? Cute technique. But previously we have never attempted to maintain compatibility with more than one version of autoconf; we have always had a flag day where all developers have had to switch to the new version, and it has never been a problem. When dealing with packages as convoluted as ours, such as to require a specific version of autoconf, it does not seem too much of a burden for developers (specifically, developers that modify the configure source) to marshall more than one version of autoconf. I'm glad we won't need that config.status kludge any more. -zefram