[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Autoconf 2.70 release status update as of 2020-11-02
From: |
Lars Wendler |
Subject: |
Re: Autoconf 2.70 release status update as of 2020-11-02 |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:34:36 +0100 |
Hi Zack,
Am Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:23:29 -0500
schrieb Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>:
> It’s been five weeks since the release of autoconf 2.69c. Many bugs
> have been fixed, and I had hoped to be able to put out the final
> release of 2.70 this week, but there are still some important bugs
> that need to be fixed before we can do that.
>
> (Testing is still very welcome, but I recommend you work from autoconf
> git trunk - https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/autoconf.git - rather
> than continuing to use 2.69c. I can make another beta release if
> that would be helpful.)
If it's not too much trouble, please roll another beta release as we
(Gentoo) do tinderbox runs with autoconf-2.69c and already
found a couple of possible issues[1].
> Here is my current list of issues that ideally would be addressed
> before the release; for each, see
> `https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?BUGNUMBER` for details.
>
> * Regressions
> * `AC_LANG_PUSH/AC_LANG_POP` malfunction inside AC_DEFUN (#110294)
> * `AX_PROG_CC_FOR_BUILD` broken with 2.69c (#110350)
> * `AC_INIT` quoting headaches (#110349)
> * Broken `AC_PROG_LEX` macro (#110312) (unreproducible)
>
> * Bugs also present in 2.69
> * Replace autom4te output file atomically (#110305)
> (Debian carries a patch for this, but their implementation is not
> ideal.)
> * Parallel autotest produces mangled output on Solaris 10 (#110354)
> (cosmetic; might not be fixable)
>
> * Highly desirable enhancements
> * Revise documentation of when configure enters cross-compilation
> mode (#110347)
> * Make it possible to request a specific (non-latest) version of a
> language standard from `AC_PROG_CC` etc (#110286)
>
> At this stage I will only be accepting additions to this list if they
> are regressions from 2.69. If you discover, or already know of,
> regressions from 2.69 that aren’t on this list, please **file issues
> in Savannah** for them. It makes quite a bit of extra work for me if
> I have to copy bug reports from email into Savannah.
>
> (Please do also file issues in Savannah for any other bugs you find,
> but make clear that it is not a regression and I’ll mark it as not
> blocking 2.70.)
>
> Unfortunately, as of this week, the funding I had to work on the 2.70
> release has been completely used up. I’m happy to continue as
> volunteer release manager for 2.70, but I cannot promise to fix all of
> these bugs myself using only unpaid hacking time. I’m asking everyone
> reading this email to chip in and help with these bugs so the 2.70
> release can be as good as possible. In most cases, the problem is
> clear and we just need to develop and test the fix.
>
> I’m going to send an email like this every week from now on until the
> release happens.
>
> zw
>
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/732648
Thanks and kind regards
--
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93 9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39
pgp_q2A0FcRQg.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP