Re: time for Autoconf 2.72 (was: On time64 and Large File Support)

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1606 bytes --]


Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
>
>> On 3 Feb 2023, at 07:43, Frederic Berat <fberat@redhat.com> 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 (famous last words) other than the tag & uploading it,
> given the target audience  - that is, I wouldn't worry over testing it extensively given that's the point of the RC for now, and that can always be done
> before a subsequent RC or final release.
>
> Autoconf is currently one of the big barriers to making more progress on the C porting front, unfortunately and trying to explain
> to upstreams that some issues are ok-but-will-be-fixed-later ends up being confusing.
>
> If you're not able to look into an RC, I can try ship a snapshot in Gentoo which won't be generally available to users, but
> ask for eager users to test, but that won't help with other distros or interested parties.
>
> I'm happy to do the work if someone can tell me what needs doing, as well.
>
> I'm sorry to ask directly, it's just that it keeps coming up in discussions with upstreams & package maintainers.

Clang 16 was released today. Unfortunately, all released versions of
autoconf still generate configure scripts which are incompatible with it.

Is anyone aware of any issues with master as it is? I've been running
with it for months.

>
> Best,
> sam
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]