Consistent autoconf version

Dmitry Samersoff dmitry.samersoff at
Mon Aug 26 18:52:58 UTC 2013


Common practice is to have generated in source bundle, but
don't have it in source control.

I would prefer to have the same with JDK, but not sure whether it ever


On 2013-08-26 20:34, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> It's traditional to ship the generated configure, although some projects
> have waffled and only ship configure in their "release tarballs".  If you
> don't ship configure, you are forcing everyone to install yet more build
> tools, and you introduce bugs based on the autoconf version of the builder.
>  I recommend including configure in the SCM, standardizing the version of
> autoconf used to generate configure and enforcing that somehow.
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:06 AM, David DeHaven <david.dehaven at>wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Sorry if this has come up before, but I cannot find anything in the
>> archives.
>>>> Is it possible to agree an autoconf version to use to generate the
>> checked in
>>>> I recently had to merge, and regenerate this file, and found versions
>> that were generated with 2.67, 2.68, and 2.69. Using such different
>> versions makes it nearly impossible to see the relevant diffs in
>> While using the same version greatly, but not
>> completely, simplifies the number of changes.
>>>> Is there any reason why not to agree a specific version?
>>> My understanding was it is difficult to use a non-standard version on
>> some (most?) platforms. Most people would probably balk at having to use
>> any version other than that installed by default on their system.
>> Alternatively, if we want a specific version we could mandate that the
>> checked in be pushed by a project owner with access
>> to the "official" version. To my knowledge there's only been one buggy (due
>> to buggy autoconf which generated it) been checked
>> in. The diffs are annoying but in theory you're not really supposed to read
>>, instead you should be reviewing the autoconf inputs
>> which generate it.
>> If autoconf is a prerequisite for building, why not just leave
>> as a generated file rather than in SCM? I understand
>> it lengthens the build time a bit, but unless you're tweaking the build
>> system you only need to run configure sparingly.
>> -DrD-

Dmitry Samersoff
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.

More information about the build-dev mailing list