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
21 matches
Mail list logo
