Re: compilation warnings

[Rob Browning]

address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:

> That's not especially useful advice, though.  After a new autoconf
> release, Guile won't be updated instantly; it'll take some time.
> Maybe a significant amount of time in pathological cases, but in any
> case, how will we know?

Depends on what you mean.  Distribution .tar.gzs (of course) aren't
supposed to require any of the autotools, but if you're building from
CVS, then we reserve the right to require the latest versions.
However, at any given time, we probably only require some fairly
recent version.

Right now I'm using automake 1.7.7 and autoconf 2.57. so whenever I'm
working on unstable, I'll be making sure we're compatible with that.
(Just tested an ./autogen.sh on unstable, and it seems OK...)

If you mean how would someone who wants to work on a 1.6.X tarfile
know which autotools to use, then that's tougher.  Right now we just
supply a list of versions known not to work in HACKING.  Ideally,
they'd just be able to use the latest tools as well.  Frankly, I'd
consider a failure to build using the latest autotools important
enough to warrant a stable point release.

> Also, which tools do we need?  Guile has its own libtool, right?  So
> just autoconf and automake?

You actually do need autoconf, automake, and libtool.  We have our own
version of ltdl, but you'll still need libtool for all the rest:
compilation, etc. (or more specifically, so ./autogen.sh can run
libtoolize).

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4