This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Automake versions (was: Patch to make libgcj work with autoreconf again)
- From: Kelley Cook <kcook at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com, Andrew Pinskia <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Automake versions (was: Patch to make libgcj work with autoreconf again)
- Reply-to: kcook at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "KC" == Kelley Cook <kcook@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
> KC> 2005-08-19 Kelley Cook <kcook@gcc.gnu.org>
> KC> * Makefile.am (ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS): Also include "..".
> KC> * acinclude.m4: Delete. Extract CHECK_FOR_BROKEN_MINGW_LD to
> ...
> KC> * mingwld.m4: ... this new file.
> KC> * aclocal.m4, Makefile.in, gcj/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
> KC> * include/Makefile.in, testsuite/Makfile.in: Regenerate.
>
> You used automake 1.9.4 to build Makefile.in.
Yes, Andrew had used 1.9.4 in his patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-08/msg00618.html) from a few days
before, so I did also. I actually had to download that version first.
> AIUI, with the exception of libgfortran, the tree is currently
> standardized on automake 1.9.3. I wouldn't mind an update, but it
> ought to be done globally and install.texi ought to be updated.
> Meanwhile, having folks using different versions causes cvs churn...
Unfortunately, we have automake 1.9.3, 1.9.4 and 1.9.5 floating
throughout the tree. I propose standardizing the entire tree on 1.9.6,
as it is the current release; moreover the 1.9 branch has only had a
few minor patches since 1.9.6 was released 6 weeks ago so 1.9.6 might
be stable for a while.
>
> Probably we should have a script in contrib/ that downloads and
> builds all the currently-required tool versions.
This would be very cool.