Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-03 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:46:19PM +0200 I heard the voice of Peter Eisentraut, and lo! it spake thus: Bruce Momjian wrote: Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called gnu-autoconf with the note This port is

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Pick your version: # ls -lt /usr/local/bin/autoconf* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7672 Aug 22 2004 /usr/local/bin/autoconf259 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6194 Aug 22 2004 /usr/local/bin/autoconf253 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5007 Jul 27 2003

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Marc G. Fournier
'k, just checked, and we have the FreeBSD one installed, and always have used in the in the past ... I can install the gnu-* one if you think it will make a difference though, but I don't believe we've had any problem reports on any of our past releases ... ? On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Marc G. Fournier wrote: 'k, just checked, and we have the FreeBSD one installed, and always have used in the in the past ... I can install the gnu-* one if you think it will make a difference though, but I don't believe we've had any problem reports on any of our past releases ... ? I think

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: 'k, just checked, and we have the FreeBSD one installed, and always have used in the in the past ... I can install the gnu-* one if you think it will make a difference though, but I don't believe we've had any problem reports on any of our

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called gnu-autoconf with the note This port is specifically designed for developers that want to create cross-platform software distributions on

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called gnu-autoconf with the note This port is specifically designed for developers that want to create

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called gnu-autoconf with the note This port is specifically designed for

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marc G. Fournier wrote: If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported? Is autoconf actually run as part of any of our packaging scripts? I don't think so

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called gnu-autoconf with the note

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output? I don't remember seeing any of that and I am not running FreeBSD. On my 5.4 system autoconf259 and gnu-autoconf both fetch the *same* src file (autoconf-2.59.tar.bz2 with md5sum

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Marc G. Fournier wrote: If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported? Note that we have never used Autoconf 2.59 before, so nobody could have ever noticed and reported anything. This FreeBSD vs. GNU

[HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
As previously announced I have committed the update to Autoconf 2.59 as well as updates of mkinstalldirs, install-sh, as well as config.guess and config.sub. This shouldn't have any immediate functional impact, except that you can now turn off the autom4te.cache directory (using

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-01 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As previously announced I have committed the update to Autoconf 2.59 as well as updates of mkinstalldirs, install-sh, as well as config.guess and config.sub. Are the correct tools also installed on cvs.postgresql.org (ie, will the right things

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: Are the correct tools also installed on cvs.postgresql.org (ie, will the right things happen when Marc tries to build a tarball)? I don't see any autoconf installed there, so the wrong thing would happen either way. :-) But gnu-autoconf-2.59 is in the FreeBSD ports, if it's

Re: [HACKERS] Autotools update

2005-07-01 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Are the correct tools also installed on cvs.postgresql.org (ie, will the right things happen when Marc tries to build a tarball)? I don't see any autoconf installed there, so the wrong thing would happen either way. :-) But