current AC_PREREQ is 2.61, fwiw, which is from 2006. Latest Autoconf is
2.69 from 2012, preceded by 2.68 from 2010.
It may be useful to limit the variety of autoconfs in use by setting
AC_PREREQ to, say, 2.68.
>>> Eeek! 2.61! I believe our current minimum is 2.67 (thoug
On 28/08/2013 16:47, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-08-28 17:16, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On 8/28/13 4:59 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 28 2013, at 07:42 , Dalibor Topic wrote:
current AC_PREREQ is 2.61, fwiw, which is from 2006. Latest Autoconf
is 2.69 from 2012, preceded by 2.68 from 2010.
It
On 2013-08-28 17:16, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On 8/28/13 4:59 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 28 2013, at 07:42 , Dalibor Topic wrote:
current AC_PREREQ is 2.61, fwiw, which is from 2006. Latest Autoconf is 2.69
from 2012, preceded by 2.68 from 2010.
It may be useful to limit the variety of auto
On 8/28/13 4:59 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>
> On Aug 28 2013, at 07:42 , Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>> current AC_PREREQ is 2.61, fwiw, which is from 2006. Latest Autoconf is 2.69
>> from 2012, preceded by 2.68 from 2010.
>>
>> It may be useful to limit the variety of autoconfs in use by setting
>> A
On Aug 28 2013, at 07:42 , Dalibor Topic wrote:
> current AC_PREREQ is 2.61, fwiw, which is from 2006. Latest Autoconf is 2.69
> from 2012, preceded by 2.68 from 2010.
>
> It may be useful to limit the variety of autoconfs in use by setting
> AC_PREREQ to, say, 2.68.
Eeek! 2.61! I believe o
current AC_PREREQ is 2.61, fwiw, which is from 2006. Latest Autoconf is 2.69
from 2012, preceded by 2.68 from 2010.
It may be useful to limit the variety of autoconfs in use by setting AC_PREREQ
to, say, 2.68.
cheers,
dalibor topic
On 8/28/13 10:29 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Sounds good to m
Sounds good to me.
We could start by reviewers keeping an eye out for changes in version,
when reviewing fixes requiring updates to generated-configure.
-Chris.
On 28/08/2013 00:43, Mike Duigou wrote:
A possible policy that would also gently (glacially?) roll the autoconf version forward ove
A possible policy that would also gently (glacially?) roll the autoconf version
forward over time might be to say "If you can, use the same version of autoconf
used for the prior generated-configure you are replacing. If this is
impractical use your system's default version.". This seems like th
...
I'm guilty of submitting with all three versions, depending on if I'm
working on Ubuntu, Solaris, Windows or Mac. I too find it convenient
when the versions match and if we decided on a specific version, I would
just install that one from source on the machines I'm using. The build
of autoco
On 08/26/2013 02:52 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Common practice is to have generated configure.sh in source bundle, but
> don't have it in source control.
Yes, this is certainly how it was designed to be used. Autoconf itself,
for example, does this. It's source repository [1] does not contain a
Martin,
Common practice is to have generated configure.sh in source bundle, but
don't have it in source control.
I would prefer to have the same with JDK, but not sure whether it ever
possible.
-Dmitry
On 2013-08-26 20:34, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> It's traditional to ship the generated configur
Oh, duh, it's not a prereq for just building. Ignore my comment. Blame it on
Monday :)
-DrD-
> It's traditional to ship the generated configure, although some projects have
> waffled and only ship configure in their "release tarballs". If you don't
> ship configure, you are forcing everyone
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the archives.
>>
>> Is it possible to agree an autoconf version to use to generate the checked
>> in generated-configure.sh?
>>
>> I recently had to merge, and regenerate this file, and found versions that
>> were ge
On 2013-08-26 08:41, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26 Aug 2013, at 02:56, David Holmes wrote:
On 25/08/2013 6:34 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 24 2013, at 05:52 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
Hi,
Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the archives.
Is it possible to agree an
On 26 Aug 2013, at 02:56, David Holmes wrote:
> On 25/08/2013 6:34 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 24 2013, at 05:52 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the
>>> archives.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to agree an autoconf ve
On 25/08/2013 6:34 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 24 2013, at 05:52 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
Hi,
Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the archives.
Is it possible to agree an autoconf version to use to generate the checked in
generated-configure.sh?
I recently had t
On Aug 24 2013, at 05:52 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the archives.
>
> Is it possible to agree an autoconf version to use to generate the checked in
> generated-configure.sh?
>
> I recently had to merge, and regenerate this
Hi,
Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the
archives.
Is it possible to agree an autoconf version to use to generate the
checked in generated-configure.sh?
I recently had to merge, and regenerate this file, and found versions
that were generated with 2.67, 2.68,
18 matches
Mail list logo
