Re: Minimum requirements for new builds

[Ben Abbott]

John W. Eaton-3 wrote:
> 
> On 11-Nov-2009, Rik wrote:
> 
> | The file configure.ac contains checks for all three program versions. 
> | The real question is why they didn't assert a warning when you tried to
> | compile with older versions.
> 
> Jaroslav did say that 
> 
>   I tried with my system autoconf 2.61, automake 1.10 and libtool
>   1.5.26 and build failed complaining that automake 1.11 is required.
> 
> So the test for autoconf succeeded and the one for automake generated
> an error.  The problem with libtool happened because the older version
> of libtool that he was using did not have LT_PREREQ or LT_INIT.  I
> think my check for LT_INIT being undefined will help, but it would be
> better if it could make the autogen process stop at the point of the
> error instead of continuing on.
> 
> jwe
> 
> 

I've been building with autoconf 2.5. However, after the 1st make, I've had
to force a "clean" by ...

    $ hg status | grep '^? ' | sed "s/^? /rm /g" | /bin/sh

If I did not do that, I'd encounter errors for unresolved dependencies.

I'm now building with autoconf 2.6.

I'm unfamiliar with autotools, but I took a peek at configure.ac and don't
see a check for the version of autoconf.

I noticed the comment below in acinclude.m4

  25 dnl If needed, define the m4_ifblank and m4_ifnblank macros from
autoconf 2.64
  26 dnl This allows us to run with earlier Autoconfs as well.
  27 dnl FIXME: these should go away once Autoconf 2.64 is required or
ubiquitous.

Is the version of autoconf checked anywhere? If not would it make sense to
add a check to autogen.sh? .. or should acinclude.m4 be modified to require
autoconf > 2.64?


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Minimum-requirements-for-new-builds-tp26305455p26856298.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.