Re: PATCH: Re: zsh and autoconf-2.50

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 4,  8:36am, Zefram wrote:
}
} Cute technique.  But previously we have never attempted to maintain
} compatibility with more than one version of autoconf; we have always had
} a flag day where all developers have had to switch to the new version, and
} it has never been a problem.

Previously, however, we were not maintaining the source code in CVS, and
the developers therefore always had the configure script and did not need
to run autoconf.  Since SourceForge, it's quite likely that a developer
might get the source code without getting the configure script.

This means that even "casual" developers would be forced to upgrade to
the latest autoconf.

Putting the configure script into CVS too is certainly an option, but it
is somewhat error-prone -- it's too easy to commit one without the other,
and eventually we start running into issues with autoconf 2.5x vs. 2.5y,
e.g. both autoconfs work with configure.ac but produce slightly different
configure scripts so that spurious diffs can get committed.

} When dealing with packages as convoluted as ours, such as to require
} a specific version of autoconf, it does not seem too much of a burden
} for developers (specifically, developers that modify the configure
} source) to marshall more than one version of autoconf.

My specific objections are that (a) as already noted, it's not limited
just to developers who modify the configure source, and (b) when dealing
with package-manager-based installations such as most linux distributions,
it's somewhat more difficult to "marshall more than one version" without
causing unintended side-effects.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net