Proposal to align autotool versions
 

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 14:33 +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just completed testing of autotools in F13/rawhide and they seem to
> fulfill perfectly what we need so far.
>
> Fedora13 has:
>
> libtool 2.2.6 (doesn´t carry the bug for which we were forcing 2.2.7)
> autoconf 2.64 (higher than what we require now)
> automake 1.11/m4/pkg-config in more than recent enough versions.
>

There is no motivation (ie bugs) to change the dependency to a later
version autoconf for corosync.


> corosync/openais will eventually get libtool support.
> cluster-stable3 autotool implementation is eventually on the schedule.
> cluster/master trees are already ported.
>
> My suggestion is simply to use those versions across the projects so
> that developers will not require any longer to manually build autotools
> and can start easily testing again master trees.
>
> Please ACK/NACK.
>
> Fabio
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openais mailing list
> Openais@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais

Proposal to align autotool versions
 

Steven Dake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 14:33 +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I just completed testing of autotools in F13/rawhide and they seem to
>> fulfill perfectly what we need so far.
>>
>> Fedora13 has:
>>
>> libtool 2.2.6 (doesn´t carry the bug for which we were forcing 2.2.7)
>> autoconf 2.64 (higher than what we require now)
>> automake 1.11/m4/pkg-config in more than recent enough versions.
>>
>
> There is no motivation (ie bugs) to change the dependency to a later
> version autoconf for corosync.
>

You would end up using that version anyway. What matters mostly is to
set a minimum for libtool. The other packages are "less important"
because they are all in sufficient versions.

Fabio