Re: [PATCH] Installation autoconf upgrade?

On 5 Aug 2002, Karl Fogel wrote:

> The issue here is that people were trying to build Neon from its CVS
> tree. That's not something we recommend in our INSTALL file, nor (as
> far as I know) does Neon typically even guarantee that its head is
> stable and buildable, or that the APIs haven't changed drastically
> since the last release. Subversion is always written to a specific
> Neon release, and it says so.
>
> If people are getting confused, then perhaps we're not clear enough
> about saying "always compile from a Neon release, not from its
> bleeding edge tree", and we should fix that language. But I'm not
> sure how many instances of confusion there really are; for example,
> from reading his post, it doesn't sound like David Summers actually
> got confused about anything, he was just experimenting with cvs Neon,
> and was well aware what he was doing.
>
> The APR problem is a separate thing, since there Subversion is
> supposed to compile against head at all times. If head of APR
> requires at least autoconf 2.52, then I guess Subversion does too.
> (Would you like to check this and see what the situation is?)
>
> -Karl

I don't think I was compiling from latest bleeding edge (ouch!) neon but
from the version that was required in the Subversion INSTALL document....I
just checked out that version via CVS. However, I'll go back and verify
this....

-- 
David Wayne Summers          "Linux: Because reboots are for upgrades!"
david_at_summersoft.fay.ar.us   PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint =  C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B  60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org