httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
Date Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:40:48 GMT

On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:

>
>
> On 11/28/2008 06:35 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Paul Querna
>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. November 2008 17:55
>>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: Preferred versions of libtool and autoconf for T&R
>>>>
>>>> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>>>> What are our preferred versions of autoconf and libtool for
>>>> T&R on the weekend?
>>>>> As far as I remember autoconf 2.61 had some problems.
>>>> I'm not actually sure now days what specific version should
>>>> be used, I
>>>> haven't done RM in a while :-/
>>>>
>>>> Just make sure you use a local copy, hand compiled version, not
>>> That was my plan. Jim what versions did you use last time?
>>
>> The generated files in the httpd distribution and also in the bundled
>> apr/apr-util tell us it was autoconf 2.61 and libtool 1.5.26.
>>
>> There was a short discussion about autoconf versions and apr and  
>> httpd
>> releasing before 2.2.10:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?t=122168206000001&r=1&w=2
>>
>> The technical reasons for nit chosing 2.62 are contained in the
>> discussion starting with your mail
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=apr-dev&m=121814441110258&w=2
>
> Thanks for the pointers.
> Any objections going with autoconf 2.63 and libtool 1.5.26?
>
> If autoconf 2.63 is seen as too risky I would go back to autoconf  
> 2.61.
>

I've not used 2.63... 2.61 at least has history behind it so I'd
say stick with that.


Mime
View raw message