Re: [Patch] ld config bits for i860 coff target

[Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:51:51AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Certainly putting a recommended version in the binutils directory
> makes sense, and does no harm.  But should we require use of that
> version, or should we just specify a minimum working version via
> AC_PREREQ?
> 
> As Zack put it, the ideal solution is for the versions that happen to
> come with any recent distribution to be acceptable.  There will be some
> churn in the generated files, but otherwise everything should be OK,
> barring undiscovered major bugs.

I agree with Zack.  If we can achieve that, then I think the generated
files could be removed from CVS too.  No problem then with churn, which
is the major reason to have "blessed" versions of auto-tools.  (At least
these days.  When Ian put that version onto the ftp site, there was no
released version of auto-tools that worked reliably with binutils.)

As I said on irc, I don't really like the idea of recommending a
particular autoconf/automake version.  Having an officially blessed
version makes us (binutils) lazy in keeping up to date in our
Makefile.am/autoconf.ac files, and also means that the latest auto-tools
might not be tested as well as they could be.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre