httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: apreq2 buildconf issues
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2003 05:01:35 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Stas Bekman <> writes:
> [...]
>>I can certainly do that. But are you sure that it's a good idea?
> As developers, we often make silly demands of one another :-)

You didn't understand me. I meant that it'd be a good idea for me to keep the 
old version, in case we decide to support it, so there is someone who can test 
that things keep on working. Since we now agree that this is needed only for 
developers, I'm going ahead and upgrading my automake.

>>I mean I can do the testing with older versions unless you decide that
>>they aren't supported, in which case can require a minimal version and
>>assert with a usefull error message if the requirement is not
> It's not about putting "support requirements" on the build system, 
> it's about keeping the build system convenient for the developers 
> who build it.  We certainly would benefit from having those requirements
> made explicit in both buildconf and README.

I meant, can autoconf tools automatically assert, saying:

   You have automake version foo, and version bar is required, aborting...

or do you have to code to make this check?

>>Of course this issue is moot if users normally won't need to run automake,
>>assuming that you make sure to generate all the necessary files for releases.
> Right- the release manager needs to ensure that a ./configure script is
> available in the distribution (which reminds me that I didn't remember 
> to do that for 1.2_rc2).

probably a good idea to add this note to the release notes doc (See the 
RELEASE file I have added just recently to modperl-2.0/RELEASE, perhaps you 
can re-use chunks of it).

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message