From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |
Date: | 2007-11-16 20:05:49 |
Message-ID: | 1843.1195243549@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> We are making a mountain out of a molehill here. We've managed to get
> this right for years with very little fuss. Why make infrastructure to
> handle a problem that is at most marginal? I have more pressing concerns
> that building an autoconf step into buildfarm.
I think that trying to get configure.in to work with arbitrary versions
of autoconf is probably not a very useful expenditure of time, anyway.
What we *do* need is some way of checking whether the right autoconf
version was used in any particular branch; right now we simply rely on
committers to get it right, and it's an easy thing to mess up.
Bruce's suggestion of somehow checking this in the top Makefile is
a possibility, but even better would be if creating configure from
configure.in failed outright. We have an AC_PREREQ in there that
fails if autoconf is too old, but can we tighten it to also complain
if too new?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-11-16 21:31:12 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: update files for beta3 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-16 19:53:50 | pgsql: Repair still another bug in the btree page split WAL reduction |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-11-16 21:03:07 | Re: [pgtranslation-translators] Call for translations |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-11-16 19:56:18 | Re: GiST crash recovery (potential problems?) |