This is the mail archive of the automake@gnu.org mailing list for the automake project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Tom Tromey PING!

To: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
Subject: Re: Tom Tromey PING!
From: Akim Demaille <akim at epita dot fr>
Date: 15 Oct 2001 10:46:57 +0200
Cc: <automake at gnu dot org>
List-Id: Discussion list for automake <automake.gnu.org>
References: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F1F2@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au><mv48zedqphr.fsf@nostromo.lrde.epita.fr><008001c15553$4a619440$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Collins <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au> writes:

>> Robert, what would be wrong with the head branch as is now?  Why
>> would you want 1.5?  Is it related to the Autoconf requirements?

Robert> Well, head is for development AFAIK, so I cannot simply
Robert> publish on the squid web pages tht developers need
Robert> automake-head. And getting folk to grab a CVS snapshot just to
Robert> develop squid is a little unreasonable (think interference
Robert> with package management on debian/redhat, ports tree on *BSD
Robert> etc). But pointing at the most recent release is ok!.

Miscommunication.  I really meant HEAD *if released*.  So I'm asking
it again: would the current CVS Automake be a viable release for you?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tom Tromey PING!
  - From: Robert Collins

References:
- Tom Tromey PING!
  - From: Robert Collins
- Re: Tom Tromey PING!
  - From: Akim Demaille
- Re: Tom Tromey PING!
  - From: Robert Collins

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]