autoconf update

Doug Barton dougb at
Fri Sep 17 04:41:58 UTC 2010

On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Dominic Fandrey<kamikaze at> writes:
>>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze at wrote:
>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build
>>>>> dependency?
>>>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any
>>>>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding
>>>>> all the software improves it.
>>>>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't
>>>>> understand and that worries me.
>> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch.
> We shouldn't use our users to beta-test infrastructure changes.

Sorry, I'm not feeling well atm and realize that I didn't write what I 
was thinking here. What I intended to say was that we _don't_ 
intentionally use the ports system to force our users to beta test 
changes. I think it goes without saying that we _shouldn't_ do this, 
although I think that changes like this are a platinum-coated example of 
why we need to have -stable and -dev branches for ports.



	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list