--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 8, 2023, at 5:24 AM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> Thank you for this information. Let me add that Ubuntu 20.04 defaults
> to 2.69, but Ubuntu 22.04, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and OmniOS all
> currently default to Autoconf 2.71.
...and macOS doesn't ship with autoconf in
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 18:47:37 -0800
Guy Harris wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2023, at 8:51 AM, Denis Ovsienko
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:13:20 -0800
> > Guy Harris wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 6, 2023, at 3:31 PM, Denis Ovsienko
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is the latter, and
--- Begin Message ---
On Jan 7, 2023, at 8:51 AM, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:13:20 -0800
> Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> 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.
--- Begin Message ---
On 07/01/2023 20:13, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Francois-Xavier Le Bail via tcpdump-workers wrote:
> > Or don't generate it and have the build process be:
> > ./autogen.sh && ./configure && ...
>
> That just leads to non-deterministic builds for everyone :-(
--- Begin Message ---
On 06/01/2023 21:38, Francois-Xavier Le Bail 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
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:13:20 -0800
Guy Harris wrote:
> 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?
Unreasonable, if it is more
--- Begin Message ---
On 06/01/2023 23:49, Guy Harris via tcpdump-workers wrote:
> An alternative would be *not* to keep the generated configure script in the
> repository (that's what Wireshark ended up doing before it ceased to use
> autoconf/automake), and generate it as part of the
--- 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
--- Begin Message ---
Hello all.
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 to
Autoconf because traditionally the configure scripts
14 matches
Mail list logo
