On 12/23/2011 05:38 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > On 11-12-23 08:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Kenneth Graunke > <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: >>> On 12/23/2011 04:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >>>> --- >>>> configure.ac | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac >>>> index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 >>>> --- a/configure.ac >>>> +++ b/configure.ac >>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>>> dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. >>>> >>>> -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) >>>> +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) >>>> >>>> dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default >>>> m4_define([mesa_version], >>> >>> I'm not opposed to this, but presumably you had some reason for doing >>> it. Care to explain in the commit message? > >> Truthfully, I do not know. Gaetan said it should be so when I sent the >> my first iteration of the automake patch back in September: > All xorg modules require minimum 2.60 (2006). Given mesa is usually > compiled from source, it makes sense to align this version with xorg. If > mesa is compiled by itself or with projects other than xorg which > require an older version of autoconf, then it can remain at 2.59 (2003), > provided that someone can test that it really does configure at that > level. I doubt very much as there were big changes during this three > year gap. > > Note than autoconf and automake come as a "range of pairs". Some later > versions of automake will not install if autoconf is too old. If the > code uses features from a later version of automake, the code won't > build with older version of automake. So the version of automake also > influences the level of autoconf needed. > > All builds are done with much more recent versions of autoconf. When > the older version ceases to work because the code uses new autoconf > features, no one notices. That's my assumption. > > I try to document these things here: > http://www.x.org/wiki/NewModuleGuidelines#configure.ac > > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-September/012656.html > >> Matt
Consider me convinced. :) Thanks for the explanation, Gaetan. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
