Re: Autoconf version check

2010-10-14 Thread Wes Hardaker
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:55:56 +0100, Dave Shield > said: DS> Having to maintain several versions of autoconf in parallel is DS> something of a pain. I agree it's a pain, though autoconf is such an easy tool to install it's really not *that* bad. What surprises me most is that I think

Re: Autoconf version check

2010-10-14 Thread Dave Shield
On 13 October 2010 23:18, Wes Hardaker wrote: > MF> One big drawback is that AC_AUTOCONF_VERSION was introduced in 2.62 > MF> so any releases with a requirement below that can't use this. > > Yep, that's one of the reasons I went with the other way (at least for > the older branches). > > Your way

Re: Autoconf version check

2010-10-13 Thread Wes Hardaker
ent with the other way (at least for the older branches). Your way is a fine alternative for the 5.5+ releases if we want? Opinions welcome. # grep 2 */dist/autoconf-version net-snmp/dist/autoconf-version:2.63 V5-3-patches/dist/autoconf-version:2.59 V5-4-patches/dist/autoconf-version:2.59 V5-5-patche

Autoconf version check

2010-10-13 Thread Magnus Fromreide
. # AC_INIT([Net-SNMP], [5.6], [[email protected]]) -AC_PREREQ([2.63]) +m4_if(m4_defn([AC_AUTOCONF_VERSION]),[2.63],, + [m4_fatal([Wrong autoconf version!])]) AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([agent/mibgroup/ucd-snmp/extensible.c]) AC_REVISION([$Revision$]) See it as an alternative to

Re: Autoconf version

2010-03-03 Thread Magnus Fromreide
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:48:03AM -0500, Robert Story wrote: > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:19:30 +0100 Jan wrote: > JS> > Fedora should have an autoconf259 package you can install... Use that to > JS> > maintain backwards compatibility... > JS> > JS> Well, there is no autoconf259 in Fedora, 'people sa

Re: Autoconf version

2010-03-03 Thread Robert Story
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:19:30 +0100 Jan wrote: JS> > Fedora should have an autoconf259 package you can install... Use that to JS> > maintain backwards compatibility... JS> JS> Well, there is no autoconf259 in Fedora, 'people say' there are no known JS> issues with 2.59 and 2.63 compatibility so th

Re: Autoconf version

2010-03-03 Thread Jan Safranek
On 02/23/2010 03:32 PM, Robert Story wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:28:05 +0100 Jan wrote: > JS> Do we have any policy which autoconf/autoheader to use? I've noticed > JS> autoconf-2.59 was the last used in the 5.2 branch and I have installed > JS> autoconf-2.63 (Fedora 12). > > Fedora should h

Re: Autoconf version

2010-02-23 Thread Wes Hardaker
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:28:05 +0100, Jan Safranek > said: JS> Do we have any policy which autoconf/autoheader to use? I've noticed JS> autoconf-2.59 was the last used in the 5.2 branch and I have installed JS> autoconf-2.63 (Fedora 12) The policy is that we don't upgrade autoconf on

Re: Autoconf version

2010-02-23 Thread Thomas Anders
Jan, > Do we have any policy which autoconf/autoheader to use? http://www.net-snmp.org/wiki/index.php/Build_System#Tool_Versions +Thomas -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself.

Re: Autoconf version

2010-02-23 Thread Robert Story
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:28:05 +0100 Jan wrote: JS> Do we have any policy which autoconf/autoheader to use? I've noticed JS> autoconf-2.59 was the last used in the 5.2 branch and I have installed JS> autoconf-2.63 (Fedora 12). Fedora should have an autoconf259 package you can install... Use that t

Autoconf version

2010-02-23 Thread Jan Safranek
Hi, I'm working on compilation with new rpm-4.6 (see SVN rev. 18193). I've added some checks to e.g. V5-2-patches/net-snmp/configure.in and now I need to generate new configure script. Do we have any policy which autoconf/autoheader to use? I've noticed autoconf-2.59 was the last used in the 5