Damn-you-autocorrect or in this case recipient-address-autofill. This
one had been sent to wrong mailing list.

On 21 January 2013 12:12, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like 2.4, current TRUNK has minimum requirements of autoconf 2.59 and
> automake 1.8.
> Supporting that old autotools versions means we have to do more work
> ourselves, do things that ideally should be left to autotools, and
> probably do it worse than newer autotools do.
> In this respect step from autoconf 2.59 to 2.60 is a big one (with
> intptr_t patch going in we will have 3 special arrangements in
> configure.ac that could go with autoconf-2.60).
> One more thing could be cleaned away with autoconf-2.61.
> So, should we bump minimum autotools requirements? What they should be
> for 2.5 (bump now), and wbhat for 2.6 (bump after branching S2_5)?
> What versions of autotools older distributions we may still want to
> support have?
> CentOS 5: autoconf 2.59 and automake 1.9.6
> CentOS 6: autoconf 2.63 and automake 1.11.1
>  I'm ready to drop CentOS-5 support from freeciv-2.6, if not from
> freeciv-2.5 (and autotools are not needed when building from
> ready-made release tarball anyway).

 Given the new development on patch #3606, I'd say we're better to
drop autoconf-2.59 support from TRUNK now. Support for it would be so
kludgy anyway, that claiming it to be supported would be almost like
lying. Better to honestly make minimum requirement greater. I'd say we
go for autoconf-2.61 for 2.5 already, with no currently known needs to
bump it further for 2.6.

 - ML

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to