On 26.07.2010 15:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 7/26/2010 5:30 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I'm a bit undecided whether to port some changes between APR and
APR-UTIL branches:
- r780882 (wrowe): fix vpath building for xml/expat (removing
"configure" target in Makefile.in)
The change is in the 1.3.x branch, but neither in any older nor newer
branches.
I think forward porting is fine, this wasn't much more than an mkdir, right?
You removed running autoconf to create configure:
@@ -52,8 +52,6 @@
top_builddir = .
-AUTOCONF = autoconf
-
INSTALL = @INSTALL@
INSTALL_PROGRAM = @INSTALL_PROGRAM@
INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA@
@@ -98,9 +96,6 @@
$(SHELL) configure ; \
fi
-configure: configure.in
- $(AUTOCONF)
-
config.h: config.h.in config.status
CONFIG_FILES= CONFIG_HEADERS=$(CONFIG_HEADERS) \
$(SHELL) ./config.status
- r979102 (rjung): Updating buildconf.sh and configure.in for in
xml/expat to allow building with libtool 2. Applied to 1.5, 1.4 and 1.3.
Should I backport to older branches, or do we want to stay very
conservatve here? I'd say backport, because otherwise we might run into
the same problem we had with the first tarball for 2.2.16 again, namely
that the machine of the RM is to modern, even when preparing e.g. an
httpd 2.0 release.
1.2 isn't shipping or supported. For luddites, patching 0.9 branch is fine,
though there isn't likely to be a release except for a security flaw fix.
OK
- r979109 (rjung): Updating config.guess and config.sub to allow for
better detection of modern platforms. Applied to APR 1.3, ..., trunk and
apr-util 1.3, ..., 1.5. I suggest applying to the old branches as well.
Again, the only old branch is 0.9.
OK
