Subject: Re: autoconf
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Alistair Crooks <email@example.com>
Date: 12/20/2001 21:20:50
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 03:18:35PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Alistair Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:52:45PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > > > Backout upgrade of autoconf by popular demand.
> > >
> > > So what's the long term result? We can't stay backreved forever?
> > You overlooked the piece in my mail which said:
> > > Now it should be possible to make a conflicting autoconf25 package,
> > > but I'm a bit busy right now, for one thing.
> No, I saw that. My question is what's the long term strategy for the
> main autoconf package. Having a special purpose one around can't be
> the permanent idea.
Until we can have existing conflicting packages installed, which I'm working
on at the moment, we have conflicting entries for the packages which demand
the more bleeding edge pre-requisites.