[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Trunk r117046 fails on systems with older automake

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Trunk r117046 fails on systems with older automake
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 21:15:04 +0300

> From: Glenn Morris <address@hidden>
> Cc: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 14:02:11 -0400
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Indeed.  Moreover, please don't require different versions for the
> > trunk and the branch, as it's a nuisance to have more than a single
> > version installed.
> Why would you need two versions?
> You can use automake 1.14 today even if the minimum is 1.11.
> I'm sure many people do.
> (I see I used automake 1.14 and autoconf 2.69 for 24.3.90.)

At some point, 1.11 was the requirement, and newer versions would
fail.  If that is no longer the case, then I guess there's no problem.

> >  Also, nt/INSTALL and/or the packaged Autotools it points to need to
> > be updated once we upgrade to some newer version, so please explicitly
> > announce that here.
> I can't promise to remember, but failues with versions older than the
> minimum will be obvious, and only affect builds from bzr, not releases,
> so it doesn't seem like a big deal.

If you can promise prominent failures, that's okay, too.  (Evidently,
at least in this case, it was not so clear-cut, for reasons we still
don't understand.)  I'm afraid of subtle failures which can go
unnoticed for a long time.

> You can update the ezwinports versions whenever you feel like, no
> need to wait for Emacs to require them.

I don't have a luxury of doing jobs that are not strictly necessary,
and don't recommend that others use versions I don't use myself, or
upgrade when there's no real need.  Besides, which version to upgrade
to? it's not like you can promise to which version we will switch
next, can you?

reply via email to

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