[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name.
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name. |
Date: |
07 Feb 2001 12:13:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake) |
Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:
> On Feb 6, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Don't go that way! AC_PREREQ.
>
> It won't let you define fallbacks for older releases, which is exactly
> the point. ifdef, as you proposed, is the way to go.
I think there is some confusion on what we are discussing about.
I am referring to other applications depending upon Autoconf such as
Automake, for which it is perfectly reasonable to require a version of
Autoconf which is released. In this case AC_PREREQ is just what we
want, and we don't want to play with tests on the version numbers.
You require a version, and if nonetheless you need some specific
macro of the bleeding edge Autoconf, then ifdef is good.
That's why I'm referring to the pair AC_PREREQ/ifdef.
As far as individual tools are concerned, they just have to provide
backward compatibility, that's for sure.
- AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Pavel Roskin, 2001/02/05
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/05
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Pavel Roskin, 2001/02/05
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/06
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Alexandre Oliva, 2001/02/06
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name.,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Alexandre Oliva, 2001/02/07
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Akim Demaille, 2001/02/07
- Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Pavel Roskin, 2001/02/07
Re: AM_INCLUDE is a bad name., Tom Tromey, 2001/02/05