Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 2/8/13 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, >> which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html > What they actually mean is t

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/8/13 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, > which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html > > We are behind the curve. What they actually mean is that

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 02/08/2013 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, > >which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: > >http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html > > Is there any good reaso

Re: [HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/08/2013 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html We are behind the curve. Is the

[HACKERS] Time for an autoconf update

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64, which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html We are behind the curve. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin