anticipating autoconf changes

[Dave Morrison]

Johan Danielsson wrote:

> Speaking from the grandstand, I'd say it's probably ok to switch to
> autoconf 2.49 completely. Supporting more than one version of autoconf
> seems like a lot of unnecessary work, especially since the autoconf
> people aren't too concerned with backwards compatibility (which is
> probably a good thing).

Hi Johan,

It's not as bad as you imagine.  Most of the (small amount of) work
would have to be done anyway.  Retaining the ability to use autoconf
2.13 boils down to leaving in place a few dozen lines like these (from
cf/broken.m4):

: << END
@@@funcs="$funcs $1"@@@
END

which doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Cheers,
Dave

-- 
David Morrison  Brookhaven National Laboratory  phone: 631-344-5840
                Physics Department, Bldg 510 C    fax: 631-344-3253
		          Upton, NY 11973-5000  email: dave at bnl.gov