autoconf 2.62

[Till Straumann]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:05 -0700, Till Straumann wrote:
>   
>> Ralf.
>>
>> I saw this thread
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2008-04/msg00028.html
>>
>> and apparently you now use autoconf 2.62 on the CVS head (what
>> is to become 4.9).
>>     
> Correct.
>
> I could not avoid to upgrade to 2.62, because RTEMS's configuration is
> victim of a couple of incompatibilities between autoconf-2.62 and 2.61.
>
>   
>> Unfortunately, our site uses RHEL4 and I'm stuck.
>>     
>
> Also correct. Upstream autoconf has made a couple of unfortunate
> decisions, which render autoconf-2.62 non-applicable on
> ultra-conservative distros such as RHEL4.
>
> A corresponding request to upgrade RHEL4's (broken and defective) gm4, I
> filed at RedHat in April
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443958)
> so far has remained without any results.
>
> It might have escaped you, but this issue already had forced me to
> abandon RTEMS-4.9 toolchain support for RHEL4 some time ago 
> (in April or May).
>
>   
>>  Do I now have to build + install gm4?
>>     
> That's one option. 
>   
The only one. Luckily it's not much more than just another
nuisance.

The other suggestion of abandoning RHEL4 is not an option.
We're a bigger organization and it is way beyond my control
what distro is installed on our workstations -- I'm sure this
applies to other sites, too.

Whether you (or myself) like it or not, RHEL is a major, widely
used distro and it doesn't help RTEMS to 'abandon support'
for it, IMHO. I say this having no personal interest since I
always build my toolchains myself (the RPM install location
doesnt' fit our filesystem layout here anyways).

FWIW
T.
> The best alternative would be RH to upgrade RHEL4's gm4. Yet another
> alternative would be us to ship a modern gm4 to replace RHEL4's gm4.
>
> Yet another alternative would be users to switch the distro :/
> As I see it: RHEL4 is a server-OS, which gradually is showing its age
> and meanwhile has evolved into "too outdated"/"non-suitable" for
> forward-looking development purposes.
>
>   
>>  Any chance to remain with autoconf 2.61 for
>> the 4.9 release?
>>     
> Hardly possible.
>
> We have to choose between 2 evils: Stick with antiquated versions of SW
> with known defects or abandon supporting antiquated/ultra-conservative
> host-OSes with known defects.
>
> Ralf
>
>
>