Re: Time for an autoconf update

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Time for an autoconf update
Date: 2013-02-08 18:21:39
Message-ID: 20130208182139.GD3980@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2013 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Over in Fedora-land they're trying to institute support for ARM64,
> >which among other things means autoconf 2.69 or later:
> >http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/178273.html
>
> Is there any good reason not to move to whatever the latest and
> greatest is? 2.69 does seem pretty new - even Fedora 17 only comes
> with 2.68.

Considering that only a handful of people need the specific required
autoconf version, I don't think it's a problem to migrate to the latest
and greatest.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-02-08 18:31:51 Re: Considering Gerrit for CFs
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2013-02-08 18:13:34 Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)