On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 04:32:34PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > According to Diego Elio ???Flameeyes??? Pettenò on 1/23/2010 3:55 PM: > > Il giorno sab, 23/01/2010 alle 15.47 -0700, Eric Blake ha scritto: > >> Or is it too soon to expect > >> all distros to have an automake that new pre-installed, and more > >> effort > >> be put into supporting automake 1.9.6 and autoconf 2.59 (those being > >> the > >> implicit minimum requirements due to the use of gnulib)? Or somewhere > >> in between? > > > > I asked about that as well a few days ago, seems like the lower bound is > > RHEL-5 which means nothing more than autoconf 2.59 can be used :( > > There's a difference between supporting tarballs on RHEL-5 (where the > version of autoconf and automake is irrelevant, since you don't have to > run the autotools to build from a tarball) and actually developing on > RHEL-5 (where the developer has to install prerequisites like newer > autotools if the package decides to require newer autotools). Is there > anyone that seriously falls in the latter category, of still wanting to > _develop_ libvirt on RHEL-5? Yes, because we need to make sure that libvirt continues to work with the RHEL-5 era Xen platform, and this requires being able to fully build from GIT source. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list