Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I hold the necessity of
m4-2.0 for autoconf-2.60 to be a myth. Is that correct? If not, why?
Yes that's correct.
The searchpath manipulation primitives of m4-2.0 are required to do away
with aclocal, which was (when m4-2.0 seemed much closer!) something that
I think Akim wanted in the next release of autoconf.
I don't know of any reason why we couldn't put out an alpha of autoconf
right now. Then after a whole lot of platform testing, fixing any bugs
that fall out, a 2.60 release seems perfectly feasible.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. gary@{lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
