From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manish Singh Date: Wed Mar 3 17:15:13 2004 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] Updated Patch for 2.6 Make system In-Reply-To: <50D19C3AC815734C9E19FE4C4F6128A6178046@orsmsx403.jf.intel.com> References: <50D19C3AC815734C9E19FE4C4F6128A6178046@orsmsx403.jf.intel.com> Message-ID: <20040303231509.GD22645@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:54:23AM -0800, Villalovos, John L wrote: > > > Makes sense. Though would it make sense to distribute your > > generated > > > configure script in the future? I thought the purpose of > > configure was > > > that you could use it to create a configure script that is > > distributed > > > in the tarball and the people don't need to have autoconf > > on their end. > > > This way we wouldn't have to worry about which version of > > autoconf is on > > > a system. > > > > That's true for released tarballs, but not for svn checkouts. It's not > > really proper to have generated files in source control, > > since different > > installations can produce different output, which leads to > > merge confusion. > > I agree but you should NOT have to support older versions of autoconf > because when you generate the tarball you will create the configure > script for them. That's what I meant with "That's true for released tarballs". > But if the goal is to support AS 2.1 in the mode where they can check > the code out and run autoconf then you would need to support the older > versions. And I suppose if you are doing your development on AS 2.1 > then you would probably want that. That's precisely the goal. -Manish