On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <trawick@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: trawick
> Date: Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010
> New Revision: 906987
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=906987&view=rev
> Log:
> r835660's backport of the autoconf 2.59 check missed the
> messages that tell the user what we require
>
> Modified:
> apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
>
> Modified: apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh?rev=906987&r1=906986&r2=906987&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh (original)
> +++ apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010
> @@ -14,18 +14,18 @@
> echo "buildconf: python version $py_version (ok)"
> fi
>
> -# autoconf 2.50 or newer
> +# autoconf 2.59 or newer
> ac_version=`${AUTOCONF:-autoconf} --version 2>/dev/null|sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//;s/[a-z]*
*$//;q'`
> if test -z "$ac_version"; then
> echo "buildconf: autoconf not found."
> -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed"
> +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed"
> echo " to build APR from SVN."
> exit 1
> fi
> IFS=.; set $ac_version; IFS=' '
> if test "$1" = "2" -a "$2" -lt "59" || test "$1" -lt "2"; then
> echo "buildconf: autoconf version $ac_version found."
> -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed"
> +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed"
> echo " to build APR from SVN."
> exit 1
> else
I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
|