Re: [avr-libc-dev] reconf

[Paul Schlie]

> From: Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden>
>> As Paul Schlie wrote:
>>> Obtw., as they are all (somehow) incompatible to each other,
>>> please note that the FreeBSD package system never installs a
>>> binary named `autoconf' or `automake' itself, *any* of these have
>>> their version numbers in the command name.  That's why I always
>>> prefer a wrapper script.
> 
>> Because most packages are distributed pre-auto-configured...
> 
> Sorry, you lost me on this.  Somehow, I fail to correlate your
> statement with my statement above in any manner resulting in a
> correlation of more than 0.05.
> 
> What do the idiosyncracies of these auto* tools have in common with
> the matter that packages come pre-autoconf'ed?  The point is, when I
> *need* to run autoconf/make, I also need to know which version of
> these tools the respective build infrastructure has been written for,
> as the authors of these tools prefered to upgrade their tools in a way
> that left backwards compatibility behind.  That's the reason why
> FreeBSD always installs them with version numbers appended.

Sorry, I incorrectly interpreted your statements as observing that neither
autoconf or automake were installed by most FreeBSD distributions, as
opposed as always having their versions appended to their name.

So with respect to your primary question, based on the momentum on gnu
projects, it seems that most have transitioned/transitioning to:

- autoconf version 2.59 or greater.
- automake version 1.8.5 - 1.9.x or greater.

As a pair, so would seem like a plausible/safe choice?

(I believe autoconf-2.54 is mostly only used for old KDE distributions,
where autoconf-2.13 is fairly old and seems to require ~ automake-1.4/5)