"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Yeah, I think it's a bit insane. Keeping a few Autoconf versions around >> isn't >> hard at all. We have been doing it for years. (Hint: ./configure; make; >> make install) > > Yeah. > > I reiterate my point that I think it'd be good with a dedicated VM to build > the snapshots and releases off, that isn't affected by other changes to > whatever machine happens to be used. This VM could then be given all the > required autoconf versions, and it'd stay stable - and wouldn't be affected > by choices by whatever distribution is used.
That would work for flex and bison but we're (inexplicably afaict) *checking in* the autoconf output into CVS. So it isn't the version of autoconf used to cut the release which matters, it's the last version anyone used to run autoconf. I guess part of Marc's release cutting routine is to rerun autoconf and check in that result? But that's arguably even worse. It means that after having tested the source with whatever version of autoconf the last configure.in hacker used for months we suddenly switch to whatever Marc's machine generates just before release. Of course having every developer run autoconf suffers from that problem too. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
