On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: trawick > Date: Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010 > New Revision: 906987 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=906987&view=rev > Log: > r835660's backport of the autoconf 2.59 check missed the > messages that tell the user what we require > > Modified: > apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh > > Modified: apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh?rev=906987&r1=906986&r2=906987&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh (original) > +++ apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010 > @@ -14,18 +14,18 @@ > echo "buildconf: python version $py_version (ok)" > fi > > -# autoconf 2.50 or newer > +# autoconf 2.59 or newer > ac_version=`${AUTOCONF:-autoconf} --version 2>/dev/null|sed -e > 's/^[^0-9]*//;s/[a-z]* *$//;q'` > if test -z "$ac_version"; then > echo "buildconf: autoconf not found." > -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed" > +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed" > echo " to build APR from SVN." > exit 1 > fi > IFS=.; set $ac_version; IFS=' ' > if test "$1" = "2" -a "$2" -lt "59" || test "$1" -lt "2"; then > echo "buildconf: autoconf version $ac_version found." > -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed" > +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed" > echo " to build APR from SVN." > exit 1 > else
I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
