autoconf update

[Doug Barton]

On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Dominic Fandrey<kamikaze at bsdforen.de> writes:
>>
>>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
>>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze at bsdforen.de) 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.


Doug

-- 

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

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/