Re: Autoconf 2.69 update
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Autoconf 2.69 update |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwXTVtOCgKAoRUy2aoiXpW0jNpkwBFvKbqdfR-whTkwYA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Autoconf 2.69 update (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Autoconf 2.69 update
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
The committer maybe, but it's a PITA for reviewers on machines without
On 2013-11-20 09:53:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> As a rule, you're not supposed to bother including the configure output
> script in a submitted diff anyway. Certainly any committer worth his
> commit bit is going to ignore it and redo autoconf for himself.
the matching autoconf version around. Which at least currently
frequently isn't packaged anymore...
That's going to be a PITA whichever way you go, though, because there is not one standard about which autoconf version distros have. It's certainly not all that have 2.69. I frequently do my builds on Ubuntu 12.04 for example, which has 2.15, 2.59, 2.64 and 2.68 (don't ask me how they ended up with that combination).
The point is - regardless of which version you chose, reviewers and committers are going to have to deal with a local installation in many cases anyway. So we might be better off just documenting that in a more clear way.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: