Re: Autoconf 2.50 compatibility.

[Michael Livshin]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Michael Livshin <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I guess it can wait, then. ;) 
> 
> Well, it looks like I've fixed it, and since as you point out, only
> the developers will need autoconf 2.50, then I'm tempted to go ahead
> and update us.  Any objections?

not from me, but let the maintainers decide.

hmmm...  what does autoconf 2.50 buy us?  my home machine run Progeny
Debian, is it safe to install the autoconf package from "unstable" on
it?  or am I a wimp for using a stable distribution and thus deserve
to lose? ;)

> > a related question: do you consider the current snarfer situation
> > (that it's written in AWK and refuses to work on most of the non-Linux
> > platforms) as critical?
> 
> I'm new enough to the code base that I actually don't even really know
> much about the snarfer, but I've been planning to look in to the
> broader process a bit soon.  I presume it's the program involved in
> making the .x files...

the .doc files, mostly.  there already is an easy and portable method
of making the .x ones.

> So I'm the wrong person to answer that :>

OK.  I just figured I'd use an existing thread to ask.  (I hope to
have the new snarfer working this evening, BTW).

-- 
You cannot really appreciate "Dilbert" unless you've read it in the
original Klingon.
                                        -- Klingon Programmer