[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:21:55 +0700

Hi Chuck, Peter, Automakers,

On 22 Sep 2010, at 05:02, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Just a friendly ping, but only just now I pushed a change to the
>> 'compile' script in automake and would like the new version in
>> the release if it's not too much to ask for.  Thanks!
> that kosher?  I thought libtool was only supposed to ship the
> scripts provided by released versions of automake, not git head
> copies...  Otherwise, if I autoreconf the libtool source archive, then I
> will downgrade 'compile' et al unless I take special steps.

I don't recall having done so in a while but, according to bootstrap:

# It is okay for the bootstrap process to require unreleased autoconf
# or automake, as long as any released libtool will work with at least
# the newest stable versions of each.  Generally, newer versions offer
# better features, and documents oldest version of each
# required for bootstrap (AC_PREREQ, and AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE).

And in the release template in HACKING:

You will then need to have recent (possibly as yet unreleased) versions
of Automake and Autoconf installed to bootstrap the checked out
sources yourself.

So, I will install git automake at the front of my PATH, and if the
release process works, then I'll go ahead and use it for the release.

Automake gurus:

Is there a better way to save rebootstrappers from accidental
downgrade than specifying AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([1.11a]) in libtool's  Pity Automake doesn't use gnulibs `git-version-gen' so
that I could specify the particular revision with the compile script
patch that we want at libtool bootstrap time.

Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]