Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/5] configure.ac: bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60
On 12/23/2011 05:38 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11-12-23 08:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: On 12/23/2011 04:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: --- configure.ac | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default m4_define([mesa_version], I'm not opposed to this, but presumably you had some reason for doing it. Care to explain in the commit message? Truthfully, I do not know. Gaetan said it should be so when I sent the my first iteration of the automake patch back in September: All xorg modules require minimum 2.60 (2006). Given mesa is usually compiled from source, it makes sense to align this version with xorg. If mesa is compiled by itself or with projects other than xorg which require an older version of autoconf, then it can remain at 2.59 (2003), provided that someone can test that it really does configure at that level. I doubt very much as there were big changes during this three year gap. Note than autoconf and automake come as a range of pairs. Some later versions of automake will not install if autoconf is too old. If the code uses features from a later version of automake, the code won't build with older version of automake. So the version of automake also influences the level of autoconf needed. All builds are done with much more recent versions of autoconf. When the older version ceases to work because the code uses new autoconf features, no one notices. That's my assumption. I try to document these things here: http://www.x.org/wiki/NewModuleGuidelines#configure.ac As long as some of this gets captured in the commit message, this patch is Reviewed-by: Ian Romanick ian.d.roman...@intel.com Of course, the argument that 2.60 is five years old is already compelling. :) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-September/012656.html Matt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk71LRoACgkQubv1WfueyfxRjACdHIEutRQ1kfNljFwx93xq91Qp O6AAn0tlyKy4nqtY35zHs6SND9XHSLkh =3UJ6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/5] configure.ac: bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11-12-23 08:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: On 12/23/2011 04:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: --- configure.ac | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default m4_define([mesa_version], I'm not opposed to this, but presumably you had some reason for doing it. Care to explain in the commit message? Truthfully, I do not know. Gaetan said it should be so when I sent the my first iteration of the automake patch back in September: All xorg modules require minimum 2.60 (2006). Given mesa is usually compiled from source, it makes sense to align this version with xorg. If mesa is compiled by itself or with projects other than xorg which require an older version of autoconf, then it can remain at 2.59 (2003), provided that someone can test that it really does configure at that level. I doubt very much as there were big changes during this three year gap. Note than autoconf and automake come as a range of pairs. Some later versions of automake will not install if autoconf is too old. If the code uses features from a later version of automake, the code won't build with older version of automake. So the version of automake also influences the level of autoconf needed. All builds are done with much more recent versions of autoconf. When the older version ceases to work because the code uses new autoconf features, no one notices. That's my assumption. I try to document these things here: http://www.x.org/wiki/NewModuleGuidelines#configure.ac http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-September/012656.html Matt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk71LRoACgkQubv1WfueyfxRjACdHIEutRQ1kfNljFwx93xq91Qp O6AAn0tlyKy4nqtY35zHs6SND9XHSLkh =3UJ6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/5] configure.ac: bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60
--- configure.ac |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default m4_define([mesa_version], -- 1.7.3.4 ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/5] configure.ac: bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60
On 12/23/2011 04:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: --- configure.ac |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default m4_define([mesa_version], I'm not opposed to this, but presumably you had some reason for doing it. Care to explain in the commit message? ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/5] configure.ac: bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: On 12/23/2011 04:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: --- configure.ac | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default m4_define([mesa_version], I'm not opposed to this, but presumably you had some reason for doing it. Care to explain in the commit message? Truthfully, I do not know. Gaetan said it should be so when I sent the my first iteration of the automake patch back in September: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-September/012656.html Matt ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/5] configure.ac: bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60
On 12/23/2011 05:38 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote: On 11-12-23 08:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote: On 12/23/2011 04:21 PM, Matt Turner wrote: --- configure.ac | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index c0d6882..0d75353 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ dnl Process this file with autoconf to create configure. -AC_PREREQ([2.59]) +AC_PREREQ([2.60]) dnl Versioning - scrape the version from configs/default m4_define([mesa_version], I'm not opposed to this, but presumably you had some reason for doing it. Care to explain in the commit message? Truthfully, I do not know. Gaetan said it should be so when I sent the my first iteration of the automake patch back in September: All xorg modules require minimum 2.60 (2006). Given mesa is usually compiled from source, it makes sense to align this version with xorg. If mesa is compiled by itself or with projects other than xorg which require an older version of autoconf, then it can remain at 2.59 (2003), provided that someone can test that it really does configure at that level. I doubt very much as there were big changes during this three year gap. Note than autoconf and automake come as a range of pairs. Some later versions of automake will not install if autoconf is too old. If the code uses features from a later version of automake, the code won't build with older version of automake. So the version of automake also influences the level of autoconf needed. All builds are done with much more recent versions of autoconf. When the older version ceases to work because the code uses new autoconf features, no one notices. That's my assumption. I try to document these things here: http://www.x.org/wiki/NewModuleGuidelines#configure.ac http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-September/012656.html Matt Consider me convinced. :) Thanks for the explanation, Gaetan. ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
