The BlueZ packages still use libtool1.4 and autoconf2.13, which are
outdated.
Debian wants to remove support for libtool1.4. The reasons for the
dropping of libtool1.4 are here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg00968.html
What do you think to the idea of updating to libtool1.5 and autoconf2.5
(and a newer automake too)?
It's not actually critical right now, as I am not likely to need to
re-run autoconf or libtool to package BlueZ, but it seems likely that
it's a good idea to move to more updated versions of these tools.
-- Edd
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
Hi Edd,
> > what version of libtool and autoconf is used for Debian Woody?
>
> libtool1.4, autoconf2.53
>
> > Do Debian
> > Sarge already uses the new versions?
>
> sarge (and unstable) have autoconf2.59, libtool1.5
ok, I see. Sarge is on its way becoming stable so it is indeed a good
idea to ship new autoconf and libtool versions with the next tarballs.
Regards
Marcel
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 01:53, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Edd,
>
> > > I'm talking about what's shipped in the tarballs, which uses
> > > libtool1.4. Packagers for distros rely on the tarball releases. In the
> > > (admittedly) unlikely event that changes need to be made and autoconf
> > > re-run for the purposes of packaging, the old ac and libtool would be
> > > needed.
> > I see. Yeah, I think we should release our tarballs with new autoconf.
> > Marcel, it's time for you to upgrade ;-).
>
> what version of libtool and autoconf is used for Debian Woody?
libtool1.4, autoconf2.53
> Do Debian
> Sarge already uses the new versions?
sarge (and unstable) have autoconf2.59, libtool1.5
-- Edd
Hi Edd,
> > I'm talking about what's shipped in the tarballs, which uses
> > libtool1.4. Packagers for distros rely on the tarball releases. In the
> > (admittedly) unlikely event that changes need to be made and autoconf
> > re-run for the purposes of packaging, the old ac and libtool would be
> > needed.
> I see. Yeah, I think we should release our tarballs with new autoconf.
> Marcel, it's time for you to upgrade ;-).
what version of libtool and autoconf is used for Debian Woody? Do Debian
Sarge already uses the new versions?
Regards
Marcel
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 13:05, Edd Dumbill wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:02, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> > I'd say lets update.
> > btw What exactly depends on the old autoconf ? I mean if you just run
> > ./bootstrap on the machine that has new version it just works right.
> > At least it does on Fedora with the latest au
>
> I'm talking about what's shipped in the tarballs, which uses
> libtool1.4. Packagers for distros rely on the tarball releases. In the
> (admittedly) unlikely event that changes need to be made and autoconf
> re-run for the purposes of packaging, the old ac and libtool would be
> needed.
I see. Yeah, I think we should release our tarballs with new autoconf.
Marcel, it's time for you to upgrade ;-).
Max
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:02, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> I'd say lets update.
> btw What exactly depends on the old autoconf ? I mean if you just run
> ./bootstrap on the machine that has new version it just works right.
> At least it does on Fedora with the latest au
I'm talking about what's shipped in the tarballs, which uses
libtool1.4. Packagers for distros rely on the tarball releases. In the
(admittedly) unlikely event that changes need to be made and autoconf
re-run for the purposes of packaging, the old ac and libtool would be
needed.
-- Edd
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
I'd say lets update.
btw What exactly depends on the old autoconf ? I mean if you just run
./bootstrap on the machine that has new version it just works right.
At least it does on Fedora with the latest autoconf.
Max
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 03:11, Edd Dumbill wrote:
> The BlueZ packages still use libtool1.4 and autoconf2.13, which are
> outdated.
>
> Debian wants to remove support for libtool1.4. The reasons for the
> dropping of libtool1.4 are here:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200401/msg00968.html
>
> What do you think to the idea of updating to libtool1.5 and autoconf2.5
> (and a newer automake too)?
>
> It's not actually critical right now, as I am not likely to need to
> re-run autoconf or libtool to package BlueZ, but it seems likely that
> it's a good idea to move to more updated versions of these tools.
>
> -- Edd
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> Bluez-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel