Sriram Natarajan wrote:
>
>
> George Vasick wrote:
>> Hi Sriram,
>>
>> I thought autoconf was only required to generate configure scripts.
>> Once the configure scripts have been created, you do not need
>> autoconf to run them.
>>
> PHP does use autconf script
>> All of the packages I have built have come with configure scripts.
>> There was no need to run autoconf as part of the build. Does php do
>> something differently?
>>
> PHP DTrace probes are back ported from PHP trunk (integrated in main
> stream community). These probes are designed in such a way that one
> will need to run autoconf to re-generate the necessary runtime
> dependent files. Since PHP build process has not been updated to use
> autoconf version other than 2.13, I noticed that we are running into
> issues (with build process not enabling some dependent modules /
> functions etc) when built with autoconf version > 2.13. Currently,
> OpenSolaris uses autoconf version 2.63.
I would really rather not deliver yet another version of an auto* tool
if we can avoid it. I'm surprised that you must use the 10 year old
version (2.13) instead of the current version (2.63), which we ship.
What 2.13 features does PHP use that aren't available in 2.63? And why
don't you work with the community to make it work with 2.63? That seems
like it would benefit everyone and probably be appreciated
-Norm.
>
> On Linux platforms, autoconf / automake is compiled with version
> specific info appended to it. So, it is possible to have multiple
> version of autoconf on your system. Unfortunately, auto* tools within
> OpenSolaris is not compiled this way. Hence, I will need to probably
> compile and use autoconf 2.13 as part of PHP build process
>
> - Sriram
>> Thanks,
>> George
>>
>> Sriram Natarajan wrote:
>>> HI
>>> PHP build process requires autoconf 2.13 . I find there are lot of
>>> places within php configure script which depends on autoconf 2.13
>>> specific functionality. I am thinking of building autoconf 2.13 as
>>> part of php build process so that php build can use this specific
>>> version. Does any one have any objections ?
>>>
>>> - Sriram
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sfwnv-discuss mailing list
>>> sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sfwnv-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> sfwnv-discuss mailing list
> sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sfwnv-discuss
