Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:05, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:00 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> (I thought we had actually introduced a check for it in the Makefile, but >> I guess not...that would make it inconvenient for someone to intentionally >> use a different version for a custom

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

> On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:00 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > Right, tracking those artifacts is a long standing policy and exists > for good reasons. Our policy is that the committed changes should > be done with the "right" version of the tool to minimize churn, and > I think we should maintain th

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:22:00 +0100, Victor Stinner wrote: > I know that tracking generated files is not pure, but it's very > convenient, so please keep them: configure, Python/importlib.h, > Python/importlib_external.h, etc.! > > When testing Python on some "custom" operating systems, I alread

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

I know that tracking generated files is not pure, but it's very convenient, so please keep them: configure, Python/importlib.h, Python/importlib_external.h, etc.! When testing Python on some "custom" operating systems, I already had enough issues to compile Python :-) For example, on OpenIndiana,

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 11/24/2016 02:51 AM, Martin Panter wrote: > FWIW I make heavy use of the Mercurial interactive patch mode. I use > it to filter out any unnecessary generated changes, while selecting > other generated changes relevant to a patch. I.e. I did not know the hg interactive mode, thanks for the tip

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

середа, 23 листопада 2016 р. 08:38:40 EET Xavier de Gaye написано: > From the configure logs since last july, it seems that Benjamin and Serhiy > are the only one using autoconf 2.70: > > changeset 102530:b04560c3ce69 - author Benjamin Peterson > changeset 103648:816ae3abd928 - author S

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 11/23/2016 11:49 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > I do not think we should require individual developers committing changes to configure.ac to use a particular version of autoconf when regenerating configure. That is a burden. I do not agree, configure is a file tracked in

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

>> On 11/22/2016 08:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >> > On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:06, Xavier de Gaye wrote: >> >> The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated >> >> with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to >> >> maintain patches to this configure file in

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

2016-11-23 23:49 GMT+01:00 Gregory P. Smith : > The solution to your problem is to maintain your patches _only_ against > configure.ac and rerun autoconf using whatever version you need yourself. I agree :-) Victor ___ python-committers mailing list pyt

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

I do not think we should require individual developers committing changes to configure.ac to use a particular version of autoconf when regenerating configure. That is a burden. The solution to your problem is to maintain your patches _only_ against configure.ac and rerun autoconf using whatever ve

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 11/22/2016 08:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: > On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:06, Xavier de Gaye wrote: >> The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated >> with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to >> maintain patches to this configure file in order to build on

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:06, Xavier de Gaye wrote: > The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated > with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to > maintain patches to this configure file in order to build on a non > supported platform. I'm sorry about t

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

The configure file on the default and 3.6 branches have been generated with autoconf 2.70 once again. This is annoying when you have to maintain patches to this configure file in order to build on a non supported platform. Xavier ___ python-committers m

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

2016-09-12 8:27 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Peterson : > The correct way to solve this is probably to stop checking in the > generated configure Please keep it, it's convenient :-) > and generate it with a "blessed" autoconf version in the release tarballs. +1 for that: we should modify the release PEP f

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

The correct way to solve this is probably to stop checking in the generated configure and generate it with a "blessed" autoconf version in the release tarballs. On Sun, Sep 11, 2016, at 13:17, Xavier de Gaye wrote: > On 07/22/2016 06:41 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 at

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On Sep 11, 2016, at 16:17, Xavier de Gaye wrote: > Changeset 816ae3abd928 regenerated the configure script with 'runstatedir' > again. AFAIK Autoconf 2.70 has still not yet been released. Please let us > stick > with 2.69. As far as I can tell, the spurious "runstatedir" doesn't affect Python bu

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On 07/22/2016 06:41 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 at 06:02 Xavier de Gaye mailto:xdeg...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > It seems that the configure file on the default branch has been generated with > autoconf 2.70. Autoconf 2.70 has not yet been released [1]. The difference

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 at 06:02 Xavier de Gaye wrote: > It seems that the configure file on the default branch has been generated > with > autoconf 2.70. Autoconf 2.70 has not yet been released [1]. The > differences > between the generated configure files with 2.69 and 2.70 are a few lines > [3] >

Re: [python-committers] autoconf 2.70

On Jul 22, 2016, at 09:01, Xavier de Gaye wrote: > It seems that the configure file on the default branch has been generated with > autoconf 2.70. Autoconf 2.70 has not yet been released [1]. The differences > between the generated configure files with 2.69 and 2.70 are a few lines [3] > added by

[python-committers] autoconf 2.70

It seems that the configure file on the default branch has been generated with autoconf 2.70. Autoconf 2.70 has not yet been released [1]. The differences between the generated configure files with 2.69 and 2.70 are a few lines [3] added by 2.70 with 'runstatedir' in them. The last old discussio