apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:25:18 GMT
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way

(If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
I'd be done.  Thanks, Bill!)

Mime
View raw message