Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46185 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33482 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2009 11:38:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Nov 2009 11:38:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.94.239.5 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Received: from [82.94.239.5] ([82.94.239.5:34559] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A1/07-33335-A471D0B4 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:38:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nAPBcieN021949; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:38:44 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:38:44 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@kossu.ez.no To: Alexey Zakhlestin cc: Antony Dovgal , Pierre Joye , Sebastian Bergmann , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4B0CFFEC.2090504@daylessday.org> <4B0D0A6E.6090909@daylessday.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: svn: / pecl/pdo_4d/trunk/config.m4 pecl/pdo_ibm/trunk/config.m4 pecl/pdo_informix/trunk/config.m4 pecl/pdo_user/trunk/config.m4 php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_2/acinclude.m4 php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_2/configure.in php/php-src/branches From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: > > On 25.11.2009, at 13:43, Antony Dovgal wrote: > > > On 25.11.2009 13:36, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: > >> Wouldn't following recommendations printed in warnings help? > > > > Sure, but only for newer autoconf versions. > > Which means we would break autoconf 2.13 if we follow them. > > Is that a problem for trunk, for example? All modern systems have > newer autoconf-versions. And trunk means +1 year from now, at least 2.13 works a whole lot better, so yes, that is a problem. Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org twitter: @derickr