On 03/18/2018 07:52 PM, Joel Kulesza wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Joel Kulesza <jkule...@gmail.com > <mailto:jkule...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Joel Kulesza <jkule...@gmail.com > <mailto:jkule...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > LyX Developers, > > Has anyone configured/built with automake-1.16? > > Using homebrew on MacOS, I (apparently though not > deliberately) underwent an upgrade to automake 1.16 and my > previous configure/make process broke. It looks like automake > version 1.15 is hardcoded into the configure script (line 3250 > of configure from master@a5c859f8). I'm sure I can repair > this, but I wanted to raise the issue in case it should be > addressed more generally. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Joel > > > I'm an idiot, please disregard this spam. > > > My apologies again; this trivial work was being done while balancing a > three month old in my lap... > > Regardless, I'd forgotten that running autogen is a step that exists > (and associated with a file living in the repo) vs. configure. With > that, autogen.sh (from master@a5c859f8) also doesn't permit automake > 1.16. I've attached a patch to let autogen (and configure, make, > etc.) proceed to completion. > > However, it looks as though autogen.sh was and is self-inconsistent. > Line 14 claims LyX requires automake >=1.14 and Lines 19/23 claimed > automake 1.14 or 1.15 were required. My patch only addresses the > latter point because I'm not sure how cavalier automake version > validation should be. My requests: > > 1. Can a developer commit this patch after it's been cleared via > discussion/review? > 2. Can a developer please review autogen.sh to see which condition > (automake >= 1.14 or automake == 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, etc.) should be > the one validated against? >
The code is as is it mostly to force us to make sure new versions actually do work. We can easily enough update it, but someone who knows more than I do about this should verify. Riki
