Joe Orton wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 11:00:08AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 04:46, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > There is no "gotcha": neon is used in the Subversion build from a
> > > .tar.gz release, where the configure script is pre-generated. For a
> > > developer building Subversion (which the INSTALL document is concerned
> > > with), neon imposes no extra restriction on the autoconf version used.
> >
> > Lots of developers, myself included, build Subversion from the head with
> > neon built from a subdirectory.
>
> When in that process did you need to regenerate the neon configure
> script?
Maybe it's just me, but I can't figure out why someone would be
_against_ mentioning autoconf 2.53 -- what's the big deal?
We know that in some cases neon tells people they need 2.53. So what if
they build from the tarball -- what if they make a mistake and try
running autogen.sh before they notice there's a configure file already
built? I did. IMO the mention of 2.53 shouldn't be a surprise to someone
reading the subversion documentation, and in my book that's a gotcha. In
any case I thought 2.52 was a requirement without neon, not 2.50,
because of apache and the apr.
Bottom line is, the LCD in this picture is autoconf 2.53, it doesn't
break anything to require it and for Pete's sake we already require
people to use the CVS head for apache, apr, and apr-util. Getting
autoconf 2.53 could be the least of people's problems if we make it nice
and unambiguous and require the latest version.
hamilton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 5 17:26:39 2002