From: <fla...@gm...> - 2008-05-23 22:39:51
|
I know I asked this before and we decided to stay with autoconf 2.59, but now 2.62 has been released, and I can't see 2.61 to be _such_ a strict requirement _for building the tarball_. Note that requiring autoconf 2.61 simply put a requirement on the "make dist" target, as most users won't be running that it won't put any requirement on the system where xine-lib could be built. So, anybody against this? -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
From: Reinhard T. <sir...@ta...> - 2008-05-24 11:50:52
|
fla...@gm... (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) writes: > I know I asked this before and we decided to stay with autoconf 2.59, > but now 2.62 has been released, and I can't see 2.61 to be _such_ a > strict requirement _for building the tarball_. Note that requiring > autoconf 2.61 simply put a requirement on the "make dist" target, as > most users won't be running that it won't put any requirement on the > system where xine-lib could be built. > > So, anybody against this? Let me do a quick check about the versions used in previous debian/ubuntu releases: autoconf | 2.59a-7 | dapper | source, all autoconf | 2.61-3 | feisty | source, all autoconf | 2.61-4 | gutsy | source, all autoconf | 2.61-4 | hardy | source, all autoconf | 2.61-7 | intrepid | source, all autoconf | 2.59a-3 | oldstable | source, all autoconf | 2.61-4 | stable | source, all autoconf | 2.61-7 | testing | source, all autoconf | 2.61-7 | unstable | source, all I'm not sure about other distributions, but I don't expect them to be even slower than debian. So switching to 2.61 seems reasonable to me. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 |
From: <fla...@gm...> - 2008-05-24 12:50:05
|
Reinhard Tartler <sir...@ta...> writes: > I'm not sure about other distributions, but I don't expect them to be > even slower than debian. So switching to 2.61 seems reasonable to me. If I recall correctly last time it was either SuSE or Fedora being a problem. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
From: Bill F. <bil...@mi...> - 2008-05-25 01:45:54
|
On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:49:52 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > Reinhard Tartler <sir...@ta...> writes: > > > I'm not sure about other distributions, but I don't expect them to be > > even slower than debian. So switching to 2.61 seems reasonable to me. > > If I recall correctly last time it was either SuSE or Fedora being a > problem. Here are some data points for Fedora Core and YellowDog Linux (for PPC): FC5 autoconf-2.59 FC6 autoconf-2.59 FC7 autoconf-2.61 FC8 autoconf-2.61 FC9 autoconf-2.61 YDL 4.1 autoconf-2.59 YDL 5.0 autoconf-2.59 YDL 6.0 autoconf-2.59 So it looks like Fedora Core is in good shape, but it might be somewhat problematic for PPC folks using YellowDog Linux. Actually, I just noticed that the YDL download site has a PPC version of the FC7 autoconf-2.61 RPM (YDL is FC based). That, together with the fact that autoconf is a noarch RPM might mean that it wouldn't be that difficult to upgrade to autoconf-2.61, although I don't know what any of the dependency issues might be. -Bill |
From: Matthias H. <ma...@ms...> - 2008-05-26 14:21:47
|
On May 24, 08 14:49:52 +0200, Diego_'Flameeyes'_Petten=F2 wrote: > Reinhard Tartler <sir...@ta...> writes: > > I'm not sure about other distributions, but I don't expect them to be > > even slower than debian. So switching to 2.61 seems reasonable to me. > > If I recall correctly last time it was either SuSE or Fedora being a > problem. 10.3 has already 2.61, with 11.0 being released shortly. 11.0 will still stick to 2.61. 10.2 has 2.60, but we don't do version updates of xine for any older products anyway. And autoconf is typically a package that can be updated even from cross-product repositories without too much hassle. -> No probs from my side Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <mh...@su...> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ ma...@ms... Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de |