Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On 28 ม.ค. 2012, at 1:21, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > > Reuben Thomas wrote: > > Ping? The patches still apply cleanly to HEAD. > > On 22 December 2011 19:54, Reuben Thomas <r...@sc3d.org> wrote: > > -* Ensure that the desired versions of autoconf, automake, etc. > > - are in your PATH. See the buildreq list in bootstrap.conf for > > - the complete list. > > That paragraph is trying to say that one should be careful not to > prepare a release using anything less than the latest stable releases. > That is *not* checked by running bootstrap, and hence why I mentioned > it here. For example, if I have a working directory with lib/getdate.c > generated from before the preceding bison release, I should be careful > to remove it (make maintainer-clean) and regenerate it with the newer > version of bison. In this case, "make distclean" is insufficient. > > I.e., you're welcome to reword it, but not to remove it altogether. > > How about: > > If you have not yet upgraded to saner bootstrap, which check autotools > versions automatically for you, then you'll need to make a painstaking > manual check of the autotools versions in your PATH every time you > want to make a new distribution tarball.
You have missed the point. When I make a release, I want to use at least the latest stable build tools. AC_PREREQ does not necessarily encode that requirement. > <evil grin> > > More succinctly: Does gnulib bootstrap deliberately not consider the > AC_PREREQ and friends versions as full and correct autotool version > bootstrap prerequisites for good reason? Or is that a bug forcing the > addition of this paragraph in README-release, which Reuben has > correctly noted as spurious (when using saner bootstrap)? While the AC_PREREQ for coreutils says 2.64, I do not want to distribute a tarball built with an autoconf that old. I use autoconf 2.68+ The "2.64" is for nominal correctness (if you use 2.63, you'll hit known bugs). There have obviously been bug fixes in autoconf in the 2.5 years since then, but I don't have evidence that coreutils would have problems with files generated by 2.64 or newer.
