httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] fixing broken gnu ld (mis)detection problem
Date Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:41:04 GMT
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:58:42AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:33 AM 12/14/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:20:26AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> 
> >> Seriously, we could target only latest-n-greatest, but that 
> >> goes against the grain of many participants.
> >
> >I think we should be much stricter for the releases we make and rather
> >leninent at buildconf-time.
> >
> >I think Joe's proposed bumping up to a mandatory autoconf 2.5x (for everyone)
> >because we keep getting nailed on autoconf 2.13 bugs.  That's goodness.
> +1 for the RM to use latest and greatest 2.5.x.
> -1 veto for a 2.0.x release to require autoconf 2.5.x for these
> users who are trying to do a minor upgrade, if they are doing their
> own autoconf 2.13 config.

pffft.  Ease up on the veto there. Users don't need autoconf or
libtool. The RM generates those files during the release process.

> >And, I think we should enforce libtool 1.5.10 for any future 
> >release that we produce (i.e. in httpd-dist/tools/
> >If a developer has anything above libtool 1.3, it'll work (for 
> >some definition of 'work') - but they're on their own if they run 
> >into problems.
> This is open source, if it breaks they get both parts.  This is
> no different.  HOWEVER - I'm -1 veto on any config changes that
> require such 'recent' versions.  Suggesting this is the best
> version to use is sufficient.

For *who* ???  For developers using source from version control, then
the most recent should be fine. For people using tarballs, it is
totally irrelevant.


Greg Stein,

View raw message