Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.05.9903150259120.19918-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Well, you've totally lost me here, on what exactly the problem
> > is...especially with you last statement.  If there is a problem with
> > various users using 2.13 vs 2.12, how is that fixed by removing configure
> > from CVS and relying on ppl having autoconf installed?
> 
> Well, it wouldn't do much to help in debugging configure failures,
> true.  (But at least we'd be able to ask "what autoconf version have you
> got?" and expect a useful answer --- right now, if someone reports a
> configure failure and doesn't say exactly when he last updated, we
> might have a dickens of a time figuring out whether he had a 2.12 or
> 2.13 script.  If he does another update, the evidence would be gone.)
> 
> Mostly I just want to cut down the overhead of massive diffs in the
> configure script and ensure that we know which version of autoconf
> will be in the release.
> 
> > What sort of problems are you noticing?
> 
> I have not observed any problems --- yet.  But considering the length
> of time between 2.12 and 2.13, I assume there are some significant
> differences in their behavior ;-).  We should make sure we have the
> right version in place for our 6.5 release.
> 
> > I'm running 2.13 at home and 2.12 on hub, so I interchangeably commit
> > depending on the machine I'm on
> 
> I've been using autoconf for a long time, and I've never yet seen two
> releases that could safely be treated as interchangeable.

Well, I've been using autoconf since...since we moved everything over to
it, what, two years ago?  I have yet to see a problem using one version
over the next.  If you can show a problem, please feel free to point it
out, but until we can do that, requiring 2.12 or 2.13 explicitly, IMHO, is
ridiculous.  flex 2.54+ made sense, because of an acknowledged
problem...autoconf versions, though, there are no acknowledged problems
between each that I'm aware of...

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions
Next
From: Dmitry Samersoff
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ICQ?