Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?

2006-09-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Montag, 4. September 2006 03:57 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: Ah! Thanks! What had failed for me was just running with /path/to/old/autoconf - this one works however. Strange that a config package can't work out where its own installed files are. I had that fixed in Autoconf a while back for this

[HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I see that older back branches are still using version 2.53 of autoconf, rather than the 2.59 branch we have updated to for 8.1 and beyond. Does that mean I need to install version 2.53 if I want to update the config on those branches? If so, fixing the plpython problem I reported recently

Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?

2006-09-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Andrew Dunstan wrote: I see that older back branches are still using version 2.53 of autoconf, rather than the 2.59 branch we have updated to for 8.1 and beyond. Does that mean I need to install version 2.53 if I want to update the config on those branches? Yes. If so, fixing the plpython

Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see that older back branches are still using version 2.53 of autoconf, rather than the 2.59 branch we have updated to for 8.1 and beyond. Does that mean I need to install version 2.53 if I want to update the config on those

Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?

2006-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I do PATH=/usr/local/autoconf-2.53/bin:$PATH autoconf when I need to update back-branch configure scripts. Ah! Thanks! What had failed for me was just running with /path/to/old/autoconf - this one works however. Strange that a