On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:04:50PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: > > Maybe, I don't understand this well enough, but anyway, why do we > > require automake 1.10.1 for everyone ? Even for people not using make > > dist or the tarball at all. > > automake < 1.10.1 will fail with the current tree because it wont > understand dist-lzma target.
Hm automake 1.10.1 is even in the current Debian/stable release so it's a bit away from bleeding edge. So I'd expect that at least the other big Linux distributions ship it aswell. The current FreeBSD 7 and 8 stable series provide 1.10.1 aswell (at least it's in the ports system). > > For me, requiring this means that I can no longer compile on Linux as I > > don't have the appropriate rights there to update automake. Sounds rather odd (and old). > :( i was bit afraid of those problems. you still have the possibility, > because you can compile and install automake locally on your own account, > but i understand thats not comfortable. > > i'm open to revert all this lzma business if you or others think > it brings too much problems. It's hard to tell which distributions in which version people use to work on. After all it's hard to make right for everyone. <off-topic> While some people nowdays start to scream that Debian releases too often someone from the Su^Oracles MySQL team recently wrote a blog post that he couldn't believe people running CentOS (the RHEL rebuild) are still at some 5.0.xx release and use that in production. </off-topic> Beside that: Pavel, I had a look at #2820 and afterwards started to read about the auto tools but wihout any helpful result so far. :( Sven -- If God passed a mic to me to speak I'd say stay in bed, world Sleep in peace [The Cardigans - 03:45: No sleep]
