On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:01:56PM +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, please. :)
Btw, what happened to 2.59b ?
cheers,
dalibor topic
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@xxxxxxx
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
