Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>> <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>> I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...
>
>> Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...
>
> Locally I've got several autoconf versions installed so that I can
> update back-branch configure scripts properly. It'd probably be a good
> idea to improve your release scripts so that they select the "right"
> autoconf version for each release branch. You'll need multiple local
> installations though, instead of depending on freebsd ports for the
> "one true autoconf".
>
> Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
> latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
> a bit.
I say have a VMWare instance running with the "one true" autoconf that
is currently accepted. That way we don't have to make that distinction.
Autoconf 2.59 is going to be predominantly in the wild (rhel 5, centos5
, dapper, debian) for at least another 3-4 years.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
