So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > > > On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building > >> because of potential issues with using a later, but > >> still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not > >> going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is > >> *really* a concern, backed-up by the PMC, then someone > >> else will need to RM. > > > > You don't need to downgrade at all. Just build autoconf/libtool > > versions and install them in another dir. Add that to the front of > > your path and off you go. > > Ugg. :) > > My reason to not downgrade isn't because of having > different versions but because ALL my testing and building > on my various machine is with the newer set. So all my > confidence on my voting is based on that toolset. Down- > grading throws an unknown factor into my process which > reduces my "trust" which was based on using a different > toolset. > > My 2 cents: Developers test the build on a wide variety of autotools anyway. > Looking at all the differences from one release tarball to the next is > useful, but if autotools versions are jumping around then the bits generated > from .m4/.in changes are somewhere inside an unreviewable mess. If users > didn't report an autotools-based problem before, they presumably won't now if > the same versions are used. (But 2 cents doesn't buy much, and I don't want > to add any heat here.) > > -- > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > http://emptyhammock.com/
