--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 6, 2023, at 3:31 PM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> It is the latter, and a custom Autoconf seems an unreasonable
> requirement for contributing.
Reasonable, or unreasonable?
Whatever version is chosen as the standard autoconf, if the goal is to have the
version of the
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 14:49:54 -0800
Guy Harris wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Denis Ovsienko
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 13:25:14 -0800
> > Guy Harris wrote:
> >
> >> If we switch to making Debian Autoconf the new standard and keeping
> >> the generated
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 6, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 13:25:14 -0800
> Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> If we switch to making Debian Autoconf the new standard and keeping
>> the generated configure script in the repository, would that mean
>> that developers
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 13:25:14 -0800
Guy Harris wrote:
> If we switch to making Debian Autoconf the new standard and keeping
> the generated configure script in the repository, would that mean
> that developers working from the repository would either have to
> install Debian
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 4, 2023, at 2:30 PM, Denis Ovsienko via tcpdump-workers
wrote:
> As some have experienced before, attempts to regenerate the configure
> script often result in two groups of unnecessary changes (runstatedir
> and LARGE_OFF_T), both of which come from Debian-specific
--- Begin Message ---
On 04/01/2023 23:30, Denis Ovsienko via tcpdump-workers wrote:
> As some have experienced before, attempts to regenerate the configure
> script often result in two groups of unnecessary changes (runstatedir
> and LARGE_OFF_T), both of which come from Debian-specific patches
