You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> on 2010/02/05 17:15:56 UTC
Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: trawick
> Date: Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010
> New Revision: 906987
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=906987&view=rev
> Log:
> r835660's backport of the autoconf 2.59 check missed the
> messages that tell the user what we require
>
> Modified:
> apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
>
> Modified: apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh?rev=906987&r1=906986&r2=906987&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh (original)
> +++ apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010
> @@ -14,18 +14,18 @@
> echo "buildconf: python version $py_version (ok)"
> fi
>
> -# autoconf 2.50 or newer
> +# autoconf 2.59 or newer
> ac_version=`${AUTOCONF:-autoconf} --version 2>/dev/null|sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//;s/[a-z]* *$//;q'`
> if test -z "$ac_version"; then
> echo "buildconf: autoconf not found."
> -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed"
> +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed"
> echo " to build APR from SVN."
> exit 1
> fi
> IFS=.; set $ac_version; IFS=' '
> if test "$1" = "2" -a "$2" -lt "59" || test "$1" -lt "2"; then
> echo "buildconf: autoconf version $ac_version found."
> -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed"
> +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed"
> echo " to build APR from SVN."
> exit 1
> else
I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2010 1:40 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
>>>>> machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
>>>>
>>>> or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way
>>>>
>>>> (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
>>>> I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!)
>>>
>>> A PITA, huh? :) I would suggest simply rerolling with this change;
>>> "No C sources were harmed in the creation of this tarball".
>>>
>>> But that's just my 2c, others might disagree.
>>
>> I can pre-empt most concerns with the "version numbers are cheap" method.
>>
>> (Step 0. Review changes since the last release; fix or ask about
>> anything suspicious.)
>
> And another pretty straightforward point; autoconf is already conf'ed.
>
> Since this package ships ./configure, the warning would apply to a very
> small subset of a very small subset of people who 1) rerun ./buildconf for
> their own pleasure and 2) have a stale flavor.
>
> So I personally don't think it's even worth rerolling.
I agree, but too late now (what a week).
I'll commit the artifacts to the dev dist directory before long.
Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/5/2010 1:40 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
>>>> machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
>>>
>>> or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way
>>>
>>> (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
>>> I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!)
>>
>> A PITA, huh? :) I would suggest simply rerolling with this change;
>> "No C sources were harmed in the creation of this tarball".
>>
>> But that's just my 2c, others might disagree.
>
> I can pre-empt most concerns with the "version numbers are cheap" method.
>
> (Step 0. Review changes since the last release; fix or ask about
> anything suspicious.)
And another pretty straightforward point; autoconf is already conf'ed.
Since this package ships ./configure, the warning would apply to a very
small subset of a very small subset of people who 1) rerun ./buildconf for
their own pleasure and 2) have a stale flavor.
So I personally don't think it's even worth rerolling.
Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>
>>> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
>>> machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
>>
>> or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way
>>
>> (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
>> I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!)
>
> A PITA, huh? :) I would suggest simply rerolling with this change;
> "No C sources were harmed in the creation of this tarball".
>
> But that's just my 2c, others might disagree.
I can pre-empt most concerns with the "version numbers are cheap" method.
(Step 0. Review changes since the last release; fix or ask about
anything suspicious.)
Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/5/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
>> machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
>
> or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way
>
> (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
> I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!)
A PITA, huh? :) I would suggest simply rerolling with this change;
"No C sources were harmed in the creation of this tarball".
But that's just my 2c, others might disagree.
Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: trawick
>> Date: Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010
>> New Revision: 906987
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=906987&view=rev
>> Log:
>> r835660's backport of the autoconf 2.59 check missed the
>> messages that tell the user what we require
>>
>> Modified:
>> apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
>>
>> Modified: apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh?rev=906987&r1=906986&r2=906987&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh (original)
>> +++ apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh Fri Feb 5 16:10:29 2010
>> @@ -14,18 +14,18 @@
>> echo "buildconf: python version $py_version (ok)"
>> fi
>>
>> -# autoconf 2.50 or newer
>> +# autoconf 2.59 or newer
>> ac_version=`${AUTOCONF:-autoconf} --version 2>/dev/null|sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//;s/[a-z]* *$//;q'`
>> if test -z "$ac_version"; then
>> echo "buildconf: autoconf not found."
>> -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed"
>> +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed"
>> echo " to build APR from SVN."
>> exit 1
>> fi
>> IFS=.; set $ac_version; IFS=' '
>> if test "$1" = "2" -a "$2" -lt "59" || test "$1" -lt "2"; then
>> echo "buildconf: autoconf version $ac_version found."
>> -echo " You need autoconf version 2.50 or newer installed"
>> +echo " You need autoconf version 2.59 or newer installed"
>> echo " to build APR from SVN."
>> exit 1
>> else
>
> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
> machine). Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way
(If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
I'd be done. Thanks, Bill!)