From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A6663858D32 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 19:00:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1A6663858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF1E33E4A; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from naga.localdomain (188-23-63-229.adsl.highway.telekom.at [188.23.63.229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 580E333E0C; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:00:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 20:00:28 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Sandra Loosemore cc: Iain Sandoe , Richard Biener , Andrew Pinski , Sandra Loosemore , =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Arsen_Arsenovi=E6?= , GCC Patches , Joseph Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A small Texinfo refinement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <45b56ddb-62f6-afe1-4a20-ad674c8cc4ab@pfeifer.com> References: <20230223102714.3606058-1-arsen@aarsen.me> <76f92bd2-7d4b-15ba-12ca-8de44e91b886@codesourcery.com> <86lek7txey.fsf@aarsen.me> <86a60m98dz.fsf@aarsen.me> <708c48a9-a64d-6485-3e42-1ef9d97ffc7e@codesourcery.com> <5cbb4215-365f-1b74-3503-9a2bf4239a54@siemens.com> <8B7A5370-059A-41E7-B809-B51CA964150E@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 209.68.5.143 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > AFAIK we have not knowingly changed any specific requirements beyond the > stated 4.7 and 4.9 for PDF output, but it concerns me that nobody is > likely to be using versions that old on a regular basis to make sure > they continue to work and we haven't unknowingly introduced dependencies > on newer Texinfo features. I'm generally very interested in ensuring we do not hurt users who do not have the latest and greatest of the day. On the other hand, if there's a few people using (more or less deliberately abandonware) we should not feel too bad if something breaks. > Anyway, I think I will leave the existing requirement alone for now, and > just add a note that newer versions produce better output. With Richi mentioning that SLE 12 (which was first released 9 years ago) uses texinfo 4.13a and Andrew mentioning that RHEL 7 uses texinfo 5.1 I would feel very comfortable making either 4.13 or even 5.1 the new minimum. (Not because we need to cater to those two Enterprise Linux distros, rather since they tend to fall on the conversative side.) Gerald