[dropping all lists except autoconf] On 03/02/2012 09:09 AM, Olaf Lenz wrote: > Hi! > > On 03/02/2012 05:45 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69; >> if this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2 >> release, please speak up now. > > I want to second Bob Friesenhahn's opinion that it would be nice to keep > at least a .gz release version. The xz-utils are not part of all > standard distributions yet (I can just name the current Sabayon Linux > and openSUSE 11.3), so I would prefer it if a standard tool like autoconf > would not depend on it. Fair enough. Even though coreutils has switched to .xz-only, I will keep autoconf 2.69 at both .gz and .xz (but drop .bz2). > > Another issue I have with 2.68b is the dependency on m4 versions 1.4.6 - > 1.4.10 or 1.4.16. One of the bad versions is installed on most machines > that I use, therefore I would have to install a more recent version on > all of them, sometimes even manually. Is this really a hard requirement, > or is it possible to circumvent this somehow? What would happen if the > "bad" versions would be used? Autoconf is doing a feature test, not version test, of m4. The actual feature being tested is whether m4's replacement to strstr() has a bug that results in false positives. M4 1.4.11 - 1.4.15, on some platforms (but not all), had this bug, and there are actual configure.ac scripts in the wild where the mis-behaving m4 string search function resulted in broken configure scripts - which is why we added that feature test to autoconf's configure in the first place. So yes, it really is a hard requirement that you have a working m4. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
