Re: more build sherrif-ery (and a touch of auto*)

[Rob Adams <readams readams net>]

Shouldn't that be "auto-fu"?

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 10:14 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > We've got Daniel Reed [1], extreme auto-foo samurai, who would be able
> > to bring up most modules to the latest auto-tools versions pretty
> > quickly.  He would like to port the modules to 1.9 (current) if people
> > don't have any disagreements with that.  It seems reasonable to me to go
> > for the latest current release if we're going to be putting time into
> > this at all, but what the hell do I know about auto-tools. :-)
> > 
> > So if there are not complaints about the version bump I'd suggest the
> > maintainers duck and cover for a flurry of incoming patches.
> 
> I don't see a good reason to go for the latest.  Traditionally every new
> automake adds some new features and breaks some older, but if you stick
> to a sane subset of them you can easily come up with something that
> works for, say, 1.6-1.9
> 
> Remember that there are still people doing development on more-than-
> half-year-old distros !
> 
> If this is too much for any willing auto-foo samurai, I am willing to
> chip in my aid as an auto-foo gajin.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/
> <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
> Baby no matter what love's got to offer
> I burn myself down to the ground
> <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>