On 8 Jul 2001, Jon Trowbridge wrote:
> On 06 Jul 2001 12:25:27 -0700, Mo DeJong wrote:
> > That seems to be an ongoing problem. People run something with
> > the new autoconf, it does not work, they don't bother to investigate,
> > then they tell other people that autoconf 2.50 has "issues".
> > Often, it is the project's incorrectly written macros that are
> > to blame. I had to track down a number of strange quoting
> > errors while upgrading another package. It was no fun, but
> > it was also not autoconf's fault.
>
> Well, I don't really know if autoconf can refuse *all* of the blame
> here. The topic of switching to autoconf 2.50 has come up a few times
> over at the GNOME project, but the problem is that it breaks pretty much
> *ALL* of our builds. If not every single one, it is the vast majority
> of them. Fixing them all will be a *big* job, particularly since
> autoconf doesn't provide a "migrating from 2.13 to 2.50" doc.[1]
Ok, let's just assume for a moment that upgrading will break
every build and that some amount of work will be needed to
get each and every package to work with the new version. Is
there some alternative? You can't just stick with 2.13
forever. Software changes and things break. It is a fact
of life.
It is not that I have a problem with the complaints you
mentioned. It is just that they do not matter in this context.
Why would problems with the GNOME packages matter to developers
of subversion? The subversion project depends on apr,
the apache web server, neon, expat, berkeley db, and
python. Since GNOME software is not part of this
dependency tree, I just don't see how any of this matters.
If you have specific complaints about autoconf 2.50, why
not direct them to autoconf@gnu.org?
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:33 2006