Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-12-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 22:00 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I'm proposing that we upgrade our Autoconf to 2.69 This has been done. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-23 Thread Oskari Saarenmaa
20.11.2013 23:38, Robert Haas kirjoitti: On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: ISTM autoconf has been better with backwards compatibility lately. Maybe the fatal error could be changed to a warning and/or the check for version == 2.63 be replaced with a check for version >= 2

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Oskari Saarenmaa wrote: > ISTM autoconf has been better with backwards compatibility lately. Maybe the > fatal error could be changed to a warning and/or the check for version == > 2.63 be replaced with a check for version >= 2.63? Without a strict > requirement f

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/20/2013 10:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: On 2013-11-20 09:53:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > As a rule, you're not supposed to bother including the configure output > script in a submitte

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-11-20 09:53:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > As a rule, you're not supposed to bother including the configure output > > script in a submitted diff anyway. Certainly any committer worth his > > commit bit is going to ignore it and red

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-20 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-11-20 09:53:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > As a rule, you're not supposed to bother including the configure output > script in a submitted diff anyway. Certainly any committer worth his > commit bit is going to ignore it and redo autoconf for himself. The committer maybe, but it's a PITA fo

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-20 Thread Tom Lane
Oskari Saarenmaa writes: > ISTM autoconf has been better with backwards compatibility lately. > Maybe the fatal error could be changed to a warning and/or the check for > version == 2.63 be replaced with a check for version >= 2.63? Seems a bit risky to me. Now, Red Hat diked that test out for

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-20 Thread Oskari Saarenmaa
15.11.2013 05:00, Peter Eisentraut kirjoitti: I'm proposing that we upgrade our Autoconf to 2.69, which is the latest right now (release date 2012-04-24). There are no changes in the source needed, just tweak the version number in configure.in (see below) and run autoreconf. I've compared the c

Re: [HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I'm proposing that we upgrade our Autoconf to 2.69, which is the latest > right now (release date 2012-04-24). There are no changes in the source > needed, just tweak the version number in configure.in (see below) and > run autoreconf.

[HACKERS] Autoconf 2.69 update

2013-11-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I'm proposing that we upgrade our Autoconf to 2.69, which is the latest right now (release date 2012-04-24). There are no changes in the source needed, just tweak the version number in configure.in (see below) and run autoreconf. I've compared the configure output before and after on a few boxes,