autoconf update

Dominic Fandrey kamikaze at
Fri Sep 17 06:02:56 UTC 2010

On 17/09/2010 00:35, 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.
> Example is the breakage of databases/postgresql84-server + WITH_ICU.
>>> I second the question. Revision bump seem absolutely unnecessary.
>> There was the sweeping commit reason in another thread.
>> But I don't really think it would have been a sweeping commit if
>> it weren't for the version bump.
> Did you forget that autoconf262 was removed?

I don't get it. I've been really dumb a couple of times lately.
Maybe that's it. So if you have the patience, explain it like you
would to a dumb person.


A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? 

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list