[libvirt] [PATCH 1/n] modernizing configure

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Mon Jan 25 11:17:15 UTC 2010

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 04:32:34PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Diego Elio ???Flameeyes??? Pettenò on 1/23/2010 3:55 PM:
> > Il giorno sab, 23/01/2010 alle 15.47 -0700, Eric Blake ha scritto:
> >> Or is it too soon to expect
> >> all distros to have an automake that new pre-installed, and more
> >> effort
> >> be put into supporting automake 1.9.6 and autoconf 2.59 (those being
> >> the
> >> implicit minimum requirements due to the use of gnulib)?  Or somewhere
> >> in between? 
> > 
> > I asked about that as well a few days ago, seems like the lower bound is
> > RHEL-5 which means nothing more than autoconf 2.59 can be used :(
> There's a difference between supporting tarballs on RHEL-5 (where the
> version of autoconf and automake is irrelevant, since you don't have to
> run the autotools to build from a tarball) and actually developing on
> RHEL-5 (where the developer has to install prerequisites like newer
> autotools if the package decides to require newer autotools).  Is there
> anyone that seriously falls in the latter category, of still wanting to
> _develop_ libvirt on RHEL-5? 

Yes, because we need to make sure that libvirt continues to work with 
the RHEL-5 era Xen platform, and this requires being able to fully
build from GIT source.

|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

More information about the libvir-list mailing list