On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > > > On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building > >> because of potential issues with using a later, but > >> still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not > >> going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is > >> *really* a concern, backed-up by the PMC, then someone > >> else will need to RM. > > > > You don't need to downgrade at all. Just build autoconf/libtool > > versions and install them in another dir. Add that to the front of > > your path and off you go. > > Ugg. :) > > My reason to not downgrade isn't because of having > different versions but because ALL my testing and building > on my various machine is with the newer set. So all my > confidence on my voting is based on that toolset. Down- > grading throws an unknown factor into my process which > reduces my "trust" which was based on using a different > toolset. > My 2 cents: Developers test the build on a wide variety of autotools anyway. Looking at all the differences from one release tarball to the next is useful, but if autotools versions are jumping around then the bits generated from .m4/.in changes are somewhere inside an unreviewable mess. If users didn't report an autotools-based problem before, they presumably won't now if the same versions are used. (But 2 cents doesn't buy much, and I don't want to add any heat here.) -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
