On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:58:42AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 03:33 AM 12/14/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:20:26AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> > >> Seriously, we could target only latest-n-greatest, but that > >> goes against the grain of many participants. > > > >I think we should be much stricter for the releases we make and rather > >leninent at buildconf-time. > > > >I think Joe's proposed bumping up to a mandatory autoconf 2.5x (for everyone) > >because we keep getting nailed on autoconf 2.13 bugs. That's goodness. > > +1 for the RM to use latest and greatest 2.5.x. > > -1 veto for a 2.0.x release to require autoconf 2.5.x for these > users who are trying to do a minor upgrade, if they are doing their > own autoconf 2.13 config.
pffft. Ease up on the veto there. Users don't need autoconf or libtool. The RM generates those files during the release process. > >And, I think we should enforce libtool 1.5.10 for any future > >release that we produce (i.e. in httpd-dist/tools/releasecheck.sh). > >If a developer has anything above libtool 1.3, it'll work (for > >some definition of 'work') - but they're on their own if they run > >into problems. > > This is open source, if it breaks they get both parts. This is > no different. HOWEVER - I'm -1 veto on any config changes that > require such 'recent' versions. Suggesting this is the best > version to use is sufficient. For *who* ??? For developers using source from version control, then the most recent should be fine. For people using tarballs, it is totally irrelevant. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
