On 08 Sep 2014, at 23:07 , Marko Lindqvist <cazfi74@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm ginving theoretical autoconf-way answer. I admit that in some > individual cases the Right Thing(tm) might be too much work in > practice, and the "check version number" hack is justifiable. Indeed it may be. Delivering the source code with a 352 MiB (compressed, some 2.4 GiB uncompressed) test data set that triggers the error and which computes 17 hrs (on faster faster machines with Xeons and north of 64 GiB RAM (your mileage may vary)) until the result can be checked against the known good outcome in autoconf falls into this category I suppose. I’m not sure the Debian guys would approve having this in their weekly builds :-) B. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
