On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:18:04 -0700, Ned Deily <n...@acm.org> wrote: > In article <20121016043352.ga21...@snakebite.org>, > Trent Nelson <tr...@snakebite.org> wrote: > > Any objections to regenerating configure with autoconf 2.69? The > > current version is based off 2.68, which was release on the 22nd > > of September 2010. 2.69 was released on the 24th of April, 2012. > > > > (There are some fixes for the more esoteric UNIX platforms that > > Snakebite will benefit from. Also, I struggled to find a box > > with 2.68 even installed when I needed to regenerate configure > > this weekend; it seems all package management/ports have bumped > > to 2.69.) > > > > If there are no objections, can it be applied across the board? > > 2.7, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.x? > > I believe it is the case that we don't currently require a specific > version of autoconf. autoconf is only run when making a committer makes > a change to configure.ac et al and then it is run on the committer's > machine. So whatever is checked in for those files reflects the version > of autoconf that the committer used.
My understanding is that we use a specific version of autoconf. The reason is that otherwise we end up with useless churn in the repo as the generated file changes when different committers use different versions. In the past we have had issues with a new autoconf version actually breaking the Python build, so we also need to test a new version before switching to it. --David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
