On 16.10.2012 17:58, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:59 +0200, Stefan Krah wrote:
>> Charles-François Natali wrote:
>>> Well, so I guess all committers will have to use the same
>>> Linux/FreeBSD/whatever distribution then?
>>> AFAICT there's no requirement regarding the mercurial
Trent Nelson wrote:
[SNIP]
diff -r 51ce9830d85a configure.ac
--- a/configure.ac Sat Oct 13 11:58:23 2012 -0400
+++ b/configure.ac Tue Oct 16 09:12:56 2012 +
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@
AC_INIT(python, PYTHON_VERSION, http://bugs.python.org/)
+BUILDDIR="`pwd`"
^
http://www.gnu.
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:59 +0200, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Charles-François Natali wrote:
> > Well, so I guess all committers will have to use the same
> > Linux/FreeBSD/whatever distribution then?
> > AFAICT there's no requirement regarding the mercurial version used by
> > committers either.
>
> I
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:23:00AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver
>wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
> >> we shouldn'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
>
>> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
>> we shouldn't bump to 2.69? Any known incompatibilities?
>
> There will be pro
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:05:23 -0400
> Trent Nelson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:43:37AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
> > > > My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
> > > > The reason is that
On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
> we shouldn't bump to 2.69? Any known incompatibilities?
There will be problems building with 2.69 on Ubuntus older than 12.10,
and Debians older than wheezy.
% rmadison autoc
Trent Nelson wrote:
> > build breaking is another matter, of course. If we are
> > going to mandate a specific version again, that should be documented and
> > checked for.
>
> My preference: bump to 2.69 and set AC_PREREQ(2.69). If 2.69 proves
> unworkable, revert back to 2.68 and AC_PRE
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:17:35AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
> > It should be sufficient to install autoconf-x.y into /home/user/bin or
> > something similar. Installing autoconf from source really takes about
> > 3 minutes.
>
> Well, maybe, maybe not.
> autoconf depends on a least m4
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:05:23 -0400
Trent Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:43:37AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
> > > My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
> > > The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
> > > as the generated
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:12:35AM -0700, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
> > In article <20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org>,
> > Trent Nelson wrote:
> > > Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
> > > current ver
> It should be sufficient to install autoconf-x.y into /home/user/bin or
> something similar. Installing autoconf from source really takes about
> 3 minutes.
Well, maybe, maybe not.
autoconf depends on a least m4 and Perl, and you may very well have a
compatibility issue here.
That's why most dist
Charles-François Natali wrote:
> Well, so I guess all committers will have to use the same
> Linux/FreeBSD/whatever distribution then?
> AFAICT there's no requirement regarding the mercurial version used by
> committers either.
It should be sufficient to install autoconf-x.y into /home/user/bin o
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:43:37AM -0700, Charles-François Natali wrote:
> > My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
> > The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
> > as the generated file changes when different committers use different
> > versio
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:04:46AM -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <20121016071236.0792d250...@webabinitio.net>,
> "R. David Murray" wrote:
> > My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
> > The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
> > as the
> My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
> The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
> as the generated file changes when different committers use different
> versions. In the past we have had issues with a new autoconf version
> actually breaki
In article <20121016071236.0792d250...@webabinitio.net>,
"R. David Murray" wrote:
> My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf.
> The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo
> as the generated file changes when different committers use different
> ver
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:12:35AM -0700, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
> > In article <20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org>,
> > Trent Nelson wrote:
> > > Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
> > > current ver
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org>,
> Trent Nelson wrote:
> > Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
> > current version is based off 2.68, which was release on the 22nd
> > of September
In article <20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org>,
Trent Nelson wrote:
> Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
> current version is based off 2.68, which was release on the 22nd
> of September 2010. 2.69 was released on the 24th of April, 2012.
>
> (T
Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The
current version is based off 2.68, which was release on the 22nd
of September 2010. 2.69 was released on the 24th of April, 2012.
(There are some fixes for the more esoteric UNIX platforms that
Snakebite will b
22 matches
Mail list logo
