Jim Meyering writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 7:52 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 3/17/23 19:08, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> > Can someone see if there's some small/safe set of changes that are
>> > essential?
>> > If none (or few/easy), I might have time to make a snapshot soon.
>>
>> As far as I kn
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 7:52 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 3/17/23 19:08, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Can someone see if there's some small/safe set of changes that are
> > essential?
> > If none (or few/easy), I might have time to make a snapshot soon.
>
> As far as I know, none of the pending patches
On 3/17/23 19:08, Jim Meyering wrote:
Can someone see if there's some small/safe set of changes that are essential?
If none (or few/easy), I might have time to make a snapshot soon.
As far as I know, none of the pending patches are essential and we can
release what we have.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 6:00 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 3/17/23 16:47, Sam James wrote:
> > Clang 16 was released today. Unfortunately, all released versions of
> > autoconf still generate configure scripts which are incompatible with it.
>
> Presumably "./configure CC='clang -std=gnu17" is a work
On 3/17/23 16:47, Sam James wrote:
Clang 16 was released today. Unfortunately, all released versions of
autoconf still generate configure scripts which are incompatible with it.
Presumably "./configure CC='clang -std=gnu17" is a workaround, though
admittedly this is awkward.
Is anyone aware
Sam James writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
>
>> On 3 Feb 2023, at 07:43, Frederic Berat wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm also in favor of an RC release, I can then rebuild Fedora packages using
>> the tarball from the tester list and do some kind of A/B testing.
>>
> Paul, would you be w
> On 3 Feb 2023, at 07:43, Frederic Berat wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm also in favor of an RC release, I can then rebuild Fedora packages using
> the tarball from the tester list and do some kind of A/B testing.
>
Paul, would you be willing to try this? I don't think much work should be
needed (f
On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, at 12:34 PM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 19:23, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> __
>> On the subject of Debian, we could probably get an RC into experimental and
>> ask for archive rebuilds and say that we were hoping to get 2.72 approved
>> for a bookworm stable
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 19:23, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On the subject of Debian, we could probably get an RC into experimental
> and ask for archive rebuilds and say that we were hoping to get 2.72
> approved for a bookworm stable update.
>
> zw
>
Even with the stage of the Debian freeze (at the ti
On the subject of Debian, we could probably get an RC into experimental and ask
for archive rebuilds and say that we were hoping to get 2.72 approved for a
bookworm stable update.
zw
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023, at 2:43 AM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm also in favor of an RC release, I can then
Hi,
I'm also in favor of an RC release, I can then rebuild Fedora packages
using the tarball from the tester list and do some kind of A/B testing.
Fred.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 6:50 AM Sam James wrote:
>
>
> > On 2 Feb 2023, at 23:17, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > Due to a series of crises with
> On 2 Feb 2023, at 23:17, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> Due to a series of crises with my day job, the earliest I can promise to do
> _anything_ Autoconf related is early March. If you have time to make a
> release before then, please do not wait for me.
>
Sorry to hear Zack, hope you're doing
Due to a series of crises with my day job, the earliest I can promise to do
_anything_ Autoconf related is early March. If you have time to make a release
before then, please do not wait for me.
zw
On 2/1/23 22:43, Sam James wrote:
Unfortunately, I think we've missed the Debian freeze I think, but it is what
it is there
(was hoping to get it in there so we could benefit from the large number of
people who make dist tarballs on Debian).
Oh well. As you say, it is what it is.
Since there
> On 20 Jan 2023, at 09:56, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-12-30 14:12, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> I'm attaching a proposed patch to Autoconf master documentation in two forms.
> Zack, any further thoughts on that Autoconf patch? If not, I'm inclined to
> install it as it doesn't change behavior, o
On 2022-12-30 14:12, Paul Eggert wrote:
I'm attaching a proposed patch to Autoconf master documentation in two
forms.
Zack, any further thoughts on that Autoconf patch? If not, I'm inclined
to install it as it doesn't change behavior, only documentation, and Sam
wrote that he was happy with the
> On 30 Dec 2022, at 22:12, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 12/28/22 20:02, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> Please revert that part of your follow-up patch.
> OK, I reverted all that patch, except for the further changes you requested,
> plus some minor quoting and version-number fixes in comments.
>
>>
On 12/28/22 20:02, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Please revert that part of your follow-up patch.
OK, I reverted all that patch, except for the further changes you
requested, plus some minor quoting and version-number fixes in comments.
Is there any
chance you could send a wdiff to the list, after re
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 14:19:11 -0500, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I reviewed your patch and had the following thoughts.
>
> * Gnulib doesn't need AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED or
> AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED and they're easy for users to do on their own
> with a simple AS_IF, so let's omit these variants for now
On 11/12/22 21:11, Zack Weinberg wrote:
"A couple hours" more like eight, ugh.
I know the feeling. I didn't get time free until recently.
I reviewed your patch and had the following thoughts.
* Gnulib doesn't need AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED or
AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED and they're easy for use
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 2:02 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> But neither suggestion makes any difference. Timestamps seem OK; it
> appears that make is deciding to aclocal.m4 (and then configure) because
> of prerequisites that do not exist outright:
>
> % make -d
> [...]
>Considering target
On 2022-11-15, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:49 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> I have not pushed this, and have only tested it lightly on a current
>>> Linux.
>>> It needs testing on weird old systems, particularly old AIX, HP-UX,
>>> MinGW.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:49 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2022-11-13, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I have not pushed this, and have only tested it lightly on a current Linux.
>> It needs testing on weird old systems, particularly old AIX, HP-UX, MinGW.
>
> I'd be happy to give it a go on my weird old
[dropping non-autoconf lists from Cc]
On 2022-11-13, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I have not pushed this, and have only tested it lightly on a current Linux.
> It needs testing on weird old systems, particularly old AIX, HP-UX, MinGW.
I'd be happy to give it a go on my weird old systems ...
>
> I don
> On 13 Nov 2022, at 05:11, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, at 4:33 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> Because of the concerns raised in this thread it's become clear that
>>> what's in Autoconf now is too drastic, and I've propos
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, at 4:33 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Because of the concerns raised in this thread it's become clear that
>> what's in Autoconf now is too drastic, and I've proposed (though not yet
>> implemented) a change that will caus
26 matches
Mail list logo
