Consistent autoconf version

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at
Wed Aug 28 08:29:57 UTC 2013

Sounds good to me.

We could start by reviewers keeping an eye out for changes in version, 
when reviewing fixes requiring updates to generated-configure.


On 28/08/2013 00:43, Mike Duigou wrote:
> A possible policy that would also gently (glacially?) roll the autoconf version forward over time might be to say "If you can, use the same version of autoconf used for the prior generated-configure you are replacing. If this is impractical use your system's default version.". This seems like the most practical possible softening of a hard "Use autoconf 2.XX".
> Mike
> On Aug 27 2013, at 01:55 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I'm guilty of submitting with all three versions, depending on if I'm
>>> working on Ubuntu, Solaris, Windows or Mac. I too find it convenient
>>> when the versions match and if we decided on a specific version, I would
>>> just install that one from source on the machines I'm using. The build
>>> of autoconf takes a couple of seconds and has so far never failed for
>>> me, so it's not unreasonable or hard.
>> Right that is my understanding too. I have a single machine that I use for regenerating the generated-configure, and I will simply setup whatever version is required.
>> I don't think we need a hard mandate, just a softer agreement to use a specific version, to minimize noise. If someone cannot use that version, then so be it, but if possible then it should be encouraged.
>> -Chris.

More information about the build-dev mailing list