Re: Getting ready for the 2.39 branch/release

[Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com>]

On 23.06.22 01:00, Vladimir Mezentsev via Binutils wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/22/22 12:35, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 21.06.22 13:09, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>>    It is time to think about the next GNU Binutils release.
>>>
>>>    Ideally I would like to make the release at the end of July
>>>    which will be 6 months on from the 2.38 release. Unfortunately
>>>    I am on vacation for two weeks in the middle of July (11-22) so
>>>    either:
>>>
>>>    1. Someone else volunteers to make the 2.39 release.
>>>
>>>    2. I create the branch early (eg Saturday June 25) but then
>>>       release late (eg Saturday July 30) and the global maintainers
>>>       get to approve patches for the branch.
>>>
>>>       This does not give much time for people to get new features
>>>       into the sources before the branch is cut...
>>>
>>>    3. I create the branch in a couple of week's time (eg Fri Jul 8)
>>>       and then release early in August (eg Sat Aug 6) and again I
>>>       ask the global maintainers for help in approving patches for
>>>       the branch.
>>>
>>>    Thoughts ?
>>
>> Debian and Ubuntu are using the current trunk for the releases in development. 
>> There's currently one issue that I'm aware of:
>>
>>   https://bugs.debian.org/1013244
>>
>> just asked the Debian mips porters about it.
>>
>> As I understand, some minor gprofng configuration issues are being worked on.
> 
>   gprofng has these bugs:
> 
> ID    Product    Comp    Assignee▲ Status▲    Resolution    Summary
> 29131    binutils    gprofng    vladimir.mezentsev@oracle.com UNCO    No rule to 
> make target 'gprofng.1', needed by 'all-am'. Stop. For arm
> 
> I cannot reproduce 29131.

I added some information to the bug report. This is only seen when cross 
building.  Cross building from a git snapshot doesn't have the generated man 
pages checked in, but man_MANS has them added unconditionally. Maybe make the 
definition of man_MANS conditional on BUILD_MAN as well?

That should not be an issue for releases, because the generated man pages are 
included in the release tarball (maybe Nick needs to update the release script 
for the newly added man pages?).

Matthias