This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.

As long as the versions of the tools are specified by a version string referencing an official version in README-maintainer-mode, and not by "whatever version is on", I'm happy.

In practice I can't imagine there would be a problem with versions disappearing from the FSF site before we had upgraded to the current version (the current autoconf repository has versions of autoconf going back to 1996). But if that's a concern, we can always replicate official FSF releases to a local directory and cache them there.

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 01:58 PM, Doug Evans wrote:

Klee Dienes writes:
I'd argue that we should:

1) Specify the versions of autoconf/automake/libtool/gettext by
reference to official tarballs from
This places a requirement on the maintainers of
to not delete said tarballs until binutils has been updated.
I dont' think you or they want that kind of coupling.
Better to uncouple things and have your own tarballs.
Then you can upgrade according to your schedule, not theirs.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]