Re: Why autoconf 2.13?

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> |> > What's wrong with "rm config.cache"?  autoconf 2.50+ does not even create
> |> > a config.cache by default any more.
> |> |> The problem is when someone does "cvs update" and suddenly everything
> |> breaks because they got a newly configured configure which doesn't
> |> like the config.cache they've got sitting around.
> 
> I still regard it as an acceptable workaround, since the data in it can
> become stale quite easily anyway, just by changing anything in the build
> environment.

Yes.  If an update contains autoconf changes, I always end up rebuilding 
from scratch.

Andrew