On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!)
