Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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's really not the worst part of the problem. The worst part is that all developers who ever touch the configure script need to have the same autoconf version installed, and when dealing with back branches need to remember to use the right version. So I think focusing on only the environment used for tarball-building misses the point. We need a solution targeted at all-developers-including-Marc, not one that just sets the release process in stone. One idea people might suggest is to stop keeping the generated configure script in CVS. I'm not sure that'd make things better though. We'd be buying into the concept of trying to make configure.in work with any autoconf version any developer might be likely to use. I'm really not too sure what the functional incompatibilities between versions are, but given the extent of line-by-line diffs I've seen in the output of even adjacent versions, this isn't a question I want to take lightly. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly