From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autotools update |
Date: | 2005-07-03 00:32:50 |
Message-ID: | 20050702213155.Y1033@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does the FreeBSD one actually produce different output?
>>>
>>>
>>> If it did not, why would they bother making a separate package called
>>> "gnu-autoconf" with the note "This port is specifically designed for
>>> developers that want to create cross-platform software distributions on
>>> FreeBSD."?
>>
>>
>> If it did produce different output, why haven't we noticed it prior to
>> this? Has there actually *been* a problem that nobody has reported?
>>
>>
> Is autoconf actually run as part of any of our packaging scripts? My
> impression was that developers ran it and the committed the results (e.g. a
> configure script), unlike, say, bison where the scripts for tarballs have to
> call it. But then, of course I hardly know :-)
Every time I do a release, the last step is to update teh version numbver
in configure.in and run autoconf on it, and I do that using the version of
autoconf that is on the development server itself (ie. the FreeBSD one)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2005-07-03 01:03:55 | Re: Autotools update |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-02 23:36:34 | Re: bug in ALTER TABLE / TYPE |