I notice that some of the people committing configure fixes are using
autoconf 2.13 while some are still on 2.12.  This is a Bad Thing ---
it's not only generating huge diffs at each commit, but we don't know
which script version we've got day to day.

We need to standardize what version is being used.  2.13 is probably
the right choice, unless anyone knows of serious bugs in it.  (I'm
still on 2.12 myself but am willing to upgrade.)

An alternative possibility is to stop keeping configure in the CVS
repository, but that would mean expecting everyone who uses the CVS
sources to have autoconf installed ... I suspect that's a bad idea.

			regards, tom lane

Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:28:51 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Autoconf versions
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> I notice that some of the people committing configure fixes are using
> autoconf 2.13 while some are still on 2.12.  This is a Bad Thing ---
> it's not only generating huge diffs at each commit, but we don't know
> which script version we've got day to day.
> 
> We need to standardize what version is being used.  2.13 is probably
> the right choice, unless anyone knows of serious bugs in it.  (I'm
> still on 2.12 myself but am willing to upgrade.)
> 
> An alternative possibility is to stop keeping configure in the CVS
> repository, but that would mean expecting everyone who uses the CVS
> sources to have autoconf installed ... I suspect that's a bad idea.

Well, you've totally lost me here, on what exactly the problem
is...especially with you last statement.  If there is a problem with
various users using 2.13 vs 2.12, how is that fixed by removing configure
from CVS and relying on ppl having autoconf installed?

What sort of problems are you noticing?  I'm running 2.13 at home and 2.12
on hub, so I interchangeably commit depending on the machine I'm on
*shrug*


Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:24:46 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Well, you've totally lost me here, on what exactly the problem
> is...especially with you last statement.  If there is a problem with
> various users using 2.13 vs 2.12, how is that fixed by removing configure
> from CVS and relying on ppl having autoconf installed?

Well, it wouldn't do much to help in debugging configure failures,
true.  (But at least we'd be able to ask "what autoconf version have you
got?" and expect a useful answer --- right now, if someone reports a
configure failure and doesn't say exactly when he last updated, we
might have a dickens of a time figuring out whether he had a 2.12 or
2.13 script.  If he does another update, the evidence would be gone.)

Mostly I just want to cut down the overhead of massive diffs in the
configure script and ensure that we know which version of autoconf
will be in the release.

> What sort of problems are you noticing?

I have not observed any problems --- yet.  But considering the length
of time between 2.12 and 2.13, I assume there are some significant
differences in their behavior ;-).  We should make sure we have the
right version in place for our 6.5 release.

> I'm running 2.13 at home and 2.12 on hub, so I interchangeably commit
> depending on the machine I'm on

I've been using autoconf for a long time, and I've never yet seen two
releases that could safely be treated as interchangeable.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:21:21 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions 
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Well, you've totally lost me here, on what exactly the problem
> > is...especially with you last statement.  If there is a problem with
> > various users using 2.13 vs 2.12, how is that fixed by removing configure
> > from CVS and relying on ppl having autoconf installed?
> 
> Well, it wouldn't do much to help in debugging configure failures,
> true.  (But at least we'd be able to ask "what autoconf version have you
> got?" and expect a useful answer --- right now, if someone reports a
> configure failure and doesn't say exactly when he last updated, we
> might have a dickens of a time figuring out whether he had a 2.12 or
> 2.13 script.  If he does another update, the evidence would be gone.)
> 
> Mostly I just want to cut down the overhead of massive diffs in the
> configure script and ensure that we know which version of autoconf
> will be in the release.
> 
> > What sort of problems are you noticing?
> 
> I have not observed any problems --- yet.  But considering the length
> of time between 2.12 and 2.13, I assume there are some significant
> differences in their behavior ;-).  We should make sure we have the
> right version in place for our 6.5 release.
> 
> > I'm running 2.13 at home and 2.12 on hub, so I interchangeably commit
> > depending on the machine I'm on
> 
> I've been using autoconf for a long time, and I've never yet seen two
> releases that could safely be treated as interchangeable.

Well, I've been using autoconf since...since we moved everything over to
it, what, two years ago?  I have yet to see a problem using one version
over the next.  If you can show a problem, please feel free to point it
out, but until we can do that, requiring 2.12 or 2.13 explicitly, IMHO, is
ridiculous.  flex 2.54+ made sense, because of an acknowledged
problem...autoconf versions, though, there are no acknowledged problems
between each that I'm aware of...

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:01:20 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf versions 
unsubscribe

Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:32:21 +0100
Maurizio Marini <maumar@linux10.provincia.ps.it>
None