Would you mind opening a ticket with this suggestion? On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Michael Lum <michael....@openx.org> wrote:
> +1, but I would also suggest adding something like this at the top of > bootstrap.sh: > > have_ac_version=`autoconf --version | head -1 | cut -d' ' -f4` > desired_ac_version=2.65 > if [ `expr $have_ac_version \>= $desired_ac_version` -eq "0" ]; then > echo "Must have autoconf $desired_ac_version of higher." > exit 1 > fi > > It can be confusing when autoconf silently runs successfully, but the build > fails because an old autoconf is there. e.g. see THRIFT-646. > > > On 8/18/2010 1:59 PM, David Reiss wrote: > >> +1. This should be a 1-line change to Makefile.am. >> ________________________________________ >> From: Mark Slee [ms...@facebook.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:44 PM >> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: RE: bootstrap.sh in tarballs >> >> Ack, I misread your original proposal. I thought you meant omitting the >> *run* of bootstrap.sh, so that people would run it themselves (since they >> seemed eager to do so). >> >> Totally agreed, just don't include bootstrap.sh in the release at all. >> >> +1 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bryan Duxbury [mailto:br...@rapleaf.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:42 PM >> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs >> >> I guess I'm not really sure what the advantage of packaging it at all is. >> When would a user *ever* use it when downloading a tarball? >> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Mark Slee<ms...@facebook.com> wrote: >> >> How about making bootstrap.sh idempotent, so that it doesn't break things >>> if someone runs it, but the release is already in a state where configure >>> + >>> make would compile just fine. >>> >>> Could be as simple as having boostrap.sh invoke cleanup.sh? >>> >>> I agree it's highly annoying that things go wrong when people run >>> bootstrap.sh, and that definitely warrants fixing. But seems nice not to >>> require it. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anthony Molinaro [mailto:antho...@alumni.caltech.edu] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:33 PM >>> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs >>> >>> +1, you'll also want to get rid of cleanup.sh as that is also misleading >>> and if you run it, you'd have to bootstrap to get back to a buildable >>> thrift. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:56:12PM -0700, Bryan Duxbury wrote: >>> >>>> What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs? >>>> People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks things. If we didn't >>>> include it, then at least they'd *know* they can't run it. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Anthony Molinaro<antho...@alumni.caltech.edu> >>> >>>
