[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] Installation autoconf upgrade?

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-08-05 18:26:00 CEST

"Hamilton Link" <helink@sandia.gov> writes:
> 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.

I think you might have misunderstood what Joe was saying about
tarballs vs working trees (either that, or I'm misunderstanding you
above :-) )...

The question isn't whether you're building Subversion from a tarball
or not. Joe's point is that the neon subtree in the Subversion
sources is always unpacked *from a Neon distribution*, which means its
configure file is already generated. Thus, Neon's autoconf
requirements are of no relevance to us; autoconf 2.53 was already run,
by Joe, when he made the Neon dist.

If/when Neon is available via anon CVS, and our autogen.sh detects and
handles that case, then we'll need to think about the autoconf 2.50 vs
2.53 issue. But right now, it's a non-issue.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 5 18:41:31 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.