On 03 Jul 2001 16:04:00 -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Mo DeJong <mdejong@cygnus.com> writes:
>
> By the way, I'd still like to know to know exactly what problems Jon
> Trowbridge was having with 2.50 before we start requiring it in
> Subversion. I got the impression from his mail that he didn't share
> your high opinion of 2.50, but don't know the specifics yet.
I don't have a high or a low opinion of 2.50. All I know is that some
builds just mysteriously fail with it --- including the build for the
project I get paid to work on (Evolution).
> > once things have been upgraded to autoconf 2.50. It
> > is important to "fight the urge" to make the build
> > system work with multiple versions of the build tools.
I agree. This is why I think dropping support for libtool 1.3.x makes
sense; why continue to maintain hacky bug work-arounds?
However, the fact that autoconf 2.50 breaks builds is problematic.
Maybe necessary, but problematic.
> > Putting the ./configure script in the CVS makes it easy to pull
> > down a build-able tree from 6 months ago. This tree will not
> > depend on your locally installed (and possibly locally modified)
> > tools in any way, so it is easy to reproduce previous results
> > without worry that installed tools have an effect on the results.
I agree with the others who have argued that putting these files in CVS
is a Bad Idea[tm]. This is a real issue, though; it is too bad that the
autoconf/automake/libtool don't provide an easy way to have multiple
versions installed under the same prefix. (Wouldn't it be nice if
autoconf, libtool, etc. were just version-independent front-ends that
could be invoked in a "libtool --use-version 1.3.5" fashion...)
-JT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:32 2006