[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: an update to automake-1.11?

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> > Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:02 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> >>> Owen Taylor wrote:
> >>>> I was rather surprised to see:
> >>>>
> >>>>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-6661
> >>>>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-6076
> >>>>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-6370
> >>>>
> >>>> Where the automake was upgraded to 1.11 for F9, F10, and F11.
> >>> Upgrade on F-11 (and F-10) was requested because there are some projects
> >>> (like gnulib/coreutils) which really need automake 1.11 for build in
> >>> latest stable versions.
> >> Is there a bug report with details of this gnulib/coreutils request?
> > 
> > Not really, it was just direct irl/irc/mail communication with
> > automake/autoconf fedora maintainers&comaintainers. First request was
> > only about 1.10b in rawhide (after f-12 split) - as I needed at least
> > 1.10b to build coreutils-7.4 there (otherwise only with an ugly hack).
> And? This should not be a problem to you.

This is not problem for me on my machine - I had 1.10a/1.10b/1.11
already on my machine for quite a long time those days - but to build
them in koji it required hacky solution (e.g. temporarily
reverting/disabling things which do need automake 1.10a+ or some even
more ugly things). I was talking about first request - just to add 1.10b
to rawhide, initiative for updating F-10/F-11 to F-11 came later from
Jim Meyering side. Anyway - I like F-11 update of autotools, F-10 update
is still ok for me, but imho F-9 update should not make it to stable.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]