On Aug 4, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The change I care about in 1.5.3 >> >> So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we >> update, might as well get something that more people care about. 1.5.3 is >> in ubuntu LTS 16.04 and Fedora 24, so it's been around awhile. SUSU is said >> to be using 1.6, in the post 1.4.4 systems. People stated they want 1.5.2 >> and 1.5.3, so, I'm inclined to say, let's shoot for 1.5.3 when we do update. >> >> As for the machines in the FSF compile farm, nah, tail wagging the dog. I'd >> rather just update the requirement, and the owners or users of those >> machines can install a new dejagnu, if they are using one that is too old >> and they want to support testing gcc. > > So.. let me ping that, again, now that another year has passed :)
Putting on my random engineer hat, does Centos 7 have a patch in it? My system says 1.5.1. Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to anything older that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3. Those packaging systems and OSes that wanted to update by now, have had their chance to update. Those that punt until we bump the requirement, well, they will now have to bump. :-) Ok to update to 1.5.3. I'll pre-approve the patches to simplify and remove work arounds from the testsuite that cater to older versions. If an RM wants to push the approval to sometime later (post a release branch creation point for example), let's give them a few days to request deferral. I don't want to impact any next release in a way an RM doesn't want. RM approval for back ports, I think we don't want to back port to a previous release, but I'm happy to defer to RM; if they want to do it.
