Re: Time for an autoconf update

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 2/8/13 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64,
>> which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later:
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html

> What they actually mean is that they need config.guess and config.sub
> that is shipped with autoconf 2.69. But the ones in the postgresql
> source tree are already of the required version.

[ looks... ] Ah, you're right, and it's even true in 9.2 so I won't
be needing a patch for that. Excellent, thanks.

> The reason I haven't been pushing for autoconf updates in a while is
> that the release notes of recent versions consist mostly of "fix
> regression in previous release" and no actual features that would be of
> use in PostgreSQL's configure script. This should be revisited from
> time to time, but it's probably better to do that near the beginning of
> a development cycle.

Agreed, if there are no features or bugfixes that affect us then there's
no particular need to update.

regards, tom lane