Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 07:01 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >
> >> PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not
> >>     understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the
> >>     reporter.
> > I normally respond CC:-ing the reporter on auto*.gnu.org lists, because
> > they tend to be unreliable. Not have done so in this case was just an
> > oversight.
> 
> otoh, when I do that, I usually get 2-3 complaints from people stating 
> that I shouldn't (ymmv).

They should configure their mail system appropriately so that they don't
see duplicates. (for example, see 'man formail'). MS Exchange, for
instance, does this automatically.

From rom what I recall of the mailing list headers, its not possible to tell
a priori who in the CC list is subscribed and who isn't, thus to ensure
that all interested parties do recieve a copy, I always reply-to-all.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part