[ITP] gcc-tools-autoconf, gcc-tools-automake

[Charles Wilson]

For some reason I don't see the following message:
> According to Christopher Faylor on 1/6/2009 11:00 PM:
>> The number of votes required is five, not two.

But my reply is, this wasn't a traditional ITP anyway. I'm already the
maintainer of all existing packages in the automake and autoconf
families. I don't ask for five votes when adding a new automake1.(N+1)
package series, and I didn't ask for five votes when replacing wholesale
the old autoconf-stable/devel with the autoconf2.1/2.5 series(es) -- tho
I did in that case solicit discussion. This is similar -- but not
identical.  There were some concerns, but I felt that I explained
adequately my reasoning and the need for a new package series for each
of these two pre-existing package families to go forward.

Perhaps I should have titled my original post [RFD] rather than [ITP].

But I didn't. So if you (cgf) would like, I'll pull the gcc-tools-*
packages and wait for 3 (2 more now, counting Eric's) more votes. No big
deal.

--
Chuck