Why does 3.1b1 source not include a prebuilt configure script?

[Andi Kleen]

I hope there's an easy explanation, but why exactly does the 3.1b1 source not
include a prebuilt configure script like everyone else? (and instead require
going through hoops just to get some prehistoric autoconf version installed)

I built and did changes to mozilla couple of years ago and there was a
usable configure script back then. Why this step backwards?

Please someone explain that conundrum in small words.

Thanks.

-Andi

[Peter Weilbacher]

For CVS there was a daemon running somewhere that automatically committed the
changed configure file for every change to configure.in. IIRC that deamon has
not been adapted for Mercurial yet.

Peter.

[Ben Hearsum]

Peter's absolutely right. At some point we will have parity for this in
mozilla-central - no promises as to when though.

[Mike Shaver]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Ben Hearsum <bhea...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Peter's absolutely right. At some point we will have parity for this in
> mozilla-central - no promises as to when though.

Is there a place in the script for source tarball packaging that could
run autoconf before packaging it? That'd at least help the people
working from release tarballs, and doesn't require figuring out the
mercurial stuff.

Mike

[Ben Hearsum]

Hmmm. I think we can do that, yeah. I'll add it to the 3.1b2 notes.

[Ted Mielczarek]

On Oct 22, 11:46 am, Ben Hearsum <bhear...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Peter's absolutely right. At some point we will have parity for this in
> mozilla-central - no promises as to when though.

bsmedberg and I have considered committing configure, and having the
policy be "if you commit changes to configure.in, commit the updated
configure as well". Automated commits on m-c might get ugly with
merging and all that.

-Ted

[Ben Hearsum]

On 10/22/08 12:01 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:

Hmmm. I think we can do that, yeah. I'll add it to the 3.1b2 notes.