Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions.

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> I really would like to see the tree using autoconf 2.5x as soon as 
> possible; if this can be done before I autoconfiscate the top level 
> (which is not autoconfiscated yet) it will save me an awful lot of 
> trouble, since I can then use autoconf 2.5x for that autoconfiscation. 
> :-/
> 
> Your patch as is updates
> bfd binutils gas gdb gprof ld mmalloc opcodes rda sim utils
> 
> Can you please work up a patch for gcc 3.4 to update
> boehm-gc fastjar gcc libf2c libffi libiberty libjava libobjc 
> libstdc++-v3 zlib

Just a step back here.  Some of the directories listed below belong to 
the FSF, but some don't.  I don't think anyone can be asking Klee to 
update non FSF code.  That's why I asked Klee to drop RDA from the 
original list.

> And a patch for Insight
> itcl libgui
> 
> And one for Dejagnu
> dejagnu expect

> And for Newlib & Cygwin
> libgloss newlib winsup
> 
> And one for
> sid
> 
> and one for
> intl
> 
> --
> However, I think that it's OK to update one directory at a time, 
> provided we specify clearly what's going on, and get it all done before 
> the next release of anything.

I don't think we can guarentee that, but I think we can live with the 
consequences :-/

> Accordingly, I suggest getting clean patches for small sets of 
> directories, making sure they work, getting them reviewed, and then 
> putting them in; and then starting on the next set.  Keep sending update
> notices to the various lists regarding which directories use the 'new' 
> tools and which use the 'old'.  If you can make scripts which work 
> correctly under *both* autoconf 2.5x *and* autoconf 2.13, by all means 
> do so *first*, and mark those scripts as "compatibile with both", of 
> course; but I expect that will only happen for the simplest directories.
> 
> If this is acceptable to other people in the various groups of course.
> 
> I expect this will generate a certain amount of breakage, but then so 
> did my changes.  In both cases, it needs to be done, we just have to 
> make sure all the breakage gets fixed.

Andrew

> --Nathanael
> 
> P.S.
> It was mentioned that autoconf2.5 scripts will have trouble with 
> building because of the top level passing down --target unconditionally.
> 
> Unfortunately I think some other aspects of the configure scripts 
> require --target to be passed down unconditionally. :-/  Otherwise I'd 
> just change it.
> 
> 
>