This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.
- From: Klee Dienes <klee at apple dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- Cc: zack at codesourcery dot com,neroden at twcny dot rr dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,newlib at sources dot redhat dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 05:48:52 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 06:19 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
What if the rules generated by --enable-maintainer-mode were to pass a
version number to each of the tools when using them to re-generate
files? The version number passed would be the same version number used
to generate the existing version of the generated files. Then the
autotools could either dispatch to the correct version of the tool
based on the version number, or
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:55:38PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Perhaps --enable-maintainer-mode could be extended to specify a PATH
to use to find the tools.
It would need to be on a per-directory basis. Something like
perhaps generate an error if the version numbers did not match. In
order to upgrade the generated files in a directory to a newer version,
the user would have to explicitly run autoreconf or run he appropriate
This would make it a lot harder for a maintainer to accidentally use
the wrong version of an autotool when regenerating files in a
directory. It would also make it possible to write a top-level script
that would explicitly re-generate all of the files in a tree with
explicitly specified versions (or at least verify that the versions
being used were correct).
Regardless of how we choose to do it, though, I think it's important
that maintainers be able to update individual subdirectories to newer
versions of the autotools independently of each other (even if the way
we choose to do that is to say "don't run global
--enable-maintainer-mode, and be aware of the versions of the autotools
you are using"). If we don't, the bar for updating versions of
autotools is just too high. Trying to coordinate a simultaneous
upgrade of even a simple change across the combined src+gcc repository
is a huge amount of work --- if that's the only way to do upgrades, it
seems much more likely that the upgrades will tend to not get done.
The thought of even *touching* sid is daunting to me, much less the
thought of trying to claim that I've changed all of its Makefiles and
understand the changes.