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

Andrew Cagney
2002-12-05T19:31:43Z

> 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.
>
>
>