* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 01:54:16PM CET: > According to Eric Blake on 3/24/2008 6:08 AM: > | | This isn't sufficient > | > | With the typo corrected, I get no difference on your simple example. > > I had been wavering for some time, but you have finally given me the > clinching argument. The next release of M4 will be called 1.6, and not > 1.4.11, since this (intentional) change in behavior breaks out-of-the-box > installation of autoconf 2.59. Good idea. It is just a wee bit ugly that branch-1_4 ends with an unusable release. > It also gives more pressure for releasing > autoconf 2.62 - I hope to do so this weekend (with the older GPLv2+ plus > exception licensing used in 2.61, unless a miracle happens and the FSF > lawyers give us the okay on wording for GPLv3+ plus exception this week). I'm fine with that, too, postponing everything that might still be open. What I'd like to do until then is get the AM_COND_IF mess sorted out (so that lib/autom4te.cfg is in shape for the next Automake) and investige the Autoconf build failure I saw on MinGW with M4-1.4.10. Just to be sure, "this weekend" is the March 29 one, right? > I'm installing this to the M4 NEWS file. Should I also push a patch to > the autoconf repository branched off of 2.59, to provide a gitweb URL to > the minimal patch to lib/m4sugar/m4sugar.m4 which is required to get 2.59 > to build with newer M4? Good idea. Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
