[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Patches to README-release

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: Patches to README-release
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:18:24 +0700

Hi Jim,

On 28 ม.ค. 2012, at 1:21, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
Reuben Thomas wrote:
Ping? The patches still apply cleanly to HEAD.

On 22 December 2011 19:54, Reuben Thomas <address@hidden> wrote:
-* Ensure that the desired versions of autoconf, automake, etc.
-  are in your PATH.  See the buildreq list in bootstrap.conf for
-  the complete list.

That paragraph is trying to say that one should be careful not to
prepare a release using anything less than the latest stable releases.
That is *not* checked by running bootstrap, and hence why I mentioned
it here.  For example, if I have a working directory with lib/getdate.c
generated from before the preceding bison release, I should be careful
to remove it (make maintainer-clean) and regenerate it with the newer
version of bison.  In this case, "make distclean" is insufficient.

I.e., you're welcome to reword it, but not to remove it altogether.

How about:

If you have not yet upgraded to saner bootstrap, which check autotools
versions automatically for you, then you'll need to make a painstaking
manual check of the autotools versions in your PATH every time you
want to make a new distribution tarball.

<evil grin>

More succinctly: Does gnulib bootstrap deliberately not consider the
AC_PREREQ and friends versions as full and correct autotool version
bootstrap prerequisites for good reason? Or is that a bug forcing the
addition of this paragraph in README-release, which Reuben has
correctly noted as spurious (when using saner bootstrap)?

P.S. I will repropose saner bootstrap and supporting scripts to gnulib
        when my workload eases off in a few more weeks, as I promised
        last year.

Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)

reply via email to

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