On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 19:18 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hello Ralf, > > * Ralf Corsepius wrote on Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 03:41:36PM CEST: > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 07:19 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > > You're comparing apples and oranges. > > I don't see this ... You require a particular version of gm4 instead of > > searching for a feasible, sufficient "m4" (note: m4 vs. gm4). > > Autoconf has required GNU m4 for a looong time. Well, when this had been decided, GNU m4 had been assumed to be a viable and stable basis.
autoconf-2.62 has proven this assumption to be wrong. > Really, we require newer m4 because older versions caused autoconf to > create erroneous configure scripts, and those errors were very difficult > to diagnose. Not to make life harder for you. It might be inconvenient to you but reality simply is as simple as: Autoconf-2.62 has proven to miss its objective: portability. May-be RH realizes that RHEL4 doesn't meet autoconf's requirements and therefore doesn't qualify as suitable platform for ongoing development :/ Them upgrading their toolchains, would help us, but of cause doesn't help autoconf in general. Anyway, we just decided to drop supporting RHEL 4 from our supported platforms portfolio and decided to stay with autoconf-2.61 for the current branch of our development - It's a pity, but all this is a direct consequence of autoconf-2.62. Ralf
