On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:11 PM Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>
> I maintain http://www.cazfi.net/crosser/ for cross-compiling bunch of
> software on linux (mostly debian and ubuntu) targeted to Windows
> (win64 & win32). I'll make a test build using new autoconf. Not yet
> sure if I can make it soon al
I maintain http://www.cazfi.net/crosser/ for cross-compiling bunch of
software on linux (mostly debian and ubuntu) targeted to Windows
(win64 & win32). I'll make a test build using new autoconf. Not yet
sure if I can make it soon already with autoconf head, or will I wait
that you have a beta pack
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 5:08 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I didn't get any suggestions of additional autoconf-using software
> packages to test. To my mind, that is the biggest remaining hole in
> the plan. Please suggest any software you know of whose autoconf
> usage is particularly complicated
On 3/23/20 2:08 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Eric, Paul, as the primary maintainers, I would like to specifically
ask you if you like the plan I've outlined and if you think there's
anything that should be added to it.
The plans sound good to me. Thanks.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:22 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> It has been eight years since the release of autoconf 2.69, there’s
> been substantial improvements checked into the development trunk since
> then, and the mailing list regularly gets requests for a new release.
> It is my understanding that
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:35 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
> If you can delegate part of this testing, I'd be willing to help. I agree
> that setting up virtual machines or emulated build environments is time
> consuming (between 1 hour to 4 hours for each platform). But I've done so
> already in the pas
Hi Zack,
This plan is great news!
>I was hoping to get access to more “exotic”
>environments via the GCC Compile Farm, but all of their more
>interesting hosts are down as I write this. :-(
>
>I will cheerfully add to the above anything that someone is willing
>to give me an u
On 3/10/20 11:28 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion! I have no experience with Gentoo myself
> but I've made a note to look at doing this at some point. You say you
> automatically regenerate the configure script for any package that
> needs to patch the build system, but do
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:53 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Thanks for doing this. Two things might make Gentoo an attractive test case:
>
> 1. We have the git HEAD of autoconf packaged already, so you can
> easily install it with
>
>$ ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" emerge sys-devel/autoconf
>
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The git commits are more a factor of who has the personal ability to
make commits than whether the commits are the most important changes
needed.
What you say is true, but I only have a finite amount of time to put
into this, and I currently think that
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 11:12 AM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:14 PM Per Bothner wrote:
> > On 3/9/20 1:22 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > >
> > > - Run the bundled testsuite (plain ‘make check’ only, not ‘make
> > > distcheck’) on the following OS and CPU combinations, all of
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:14 PM Per Bothner wrote:
> On 3/9/20 1:22 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > - Run the bundled testsuite (plain ‘make check’ only, not ‘make
> > distcheck’) on the following OS and CPU combinations, all of which
> > are readily accessible to me:
> >
> > aarch64
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I’ve seen people suggest that there is a backlog of patches that have
> > been submitted to this mailing list but not reviewed, but considering
> > that there’s already more git commits in betwe
> - Run the bundled testsuite (plain ‘make check’ only, not ‘make
>distcheck’) on the following OS and CPU combinations, all of which
>are readily accessible to me: [...]
>
>This list is shorter than I would like, particularly in the OS
>department. I was hoping to get access to
On 3/9/20 4:22 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>I happen to know that these have particularly complicated configure
>scripts. I will also cheerfully take suggestions for additional
>packages to test in this manner.
>
Thanks for doing this. Two things might make Gentoo an attractive test
On 3/9/20 1:22 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
- Run the bundled testsuite (plain ‘make check’ only, not ‘make
distcheck’) on the following OS and CPU combinations, all of which
are readily accessible to me:
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
armhf-unknown-linux-gnu
mips64-unknown-linux-g
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I’ve seen people suggest that there is a backlog of patches that have
been submitted to this mailing list but not reviewed, but considering
that there’s already more git commits in between 2.69 and now than
there were between 2.68 and 2.69, I think it wou
Thanks for tackling this! Autoconf definitely needs a new release.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:23 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
> It has been eight years since the release of autoconf 2.69, there’s
> been substantial improvements checked into the development trunk since
> then, and the mailing list regul
It has been eight years since the release of autoconf 2.69, there’s
been substantial improvements checked into the development trunk since
then, and the mailing list regularly gets requests for a new release.
It is my understanding that the most important roadblock to a new
release is a lack of dev
19 matches
Mail list logo
