From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99051 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2015 23:58:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 99035 invoked by uid 89); 20 Mar 2015 23:58:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f44.google.com) (209.85.218.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:58:07 +0000 Received: by oigv203 with SMTP id v203so103749928oig.3 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:58:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=nCFS9h2kG+RsxIiTydp2KBBjxkEDjeUcy8XvocxaTjs=; b=b5y/zXiIBWjJUaiwOimxBHjkf0vaysLu6mkr8USzlhzs8V2NFmro1hnLro6X8w75MY AUNna+I08UVOEcHz6BVVXMWqOnM461o4zfdOSeDSjkOjpJsn4rSYsc4/d6VvRsiypEmB FXUrNZSNEXYIF0GbQrPuRUtXpd37WFwl67EZCXfZVcmX5A0ekFKeifztpX/aOow/kdVA /vpoHbJx+YuKnh84TKZhr3GWsOSkel3fIa/73YEFdarCH74DaTd+eaO/buep3TCtmMIC P4msx+TwQK8TpOQVI1IvUK/x2OM+wP18BAfo/D82YM6gOEqVKCxg7nXqmuI+1W+iC2V8 j9vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3y8kSKFGeQ5cGHO4X3J+JWVlLYFd1MfFTskHJ7yDH4/iEbXgxDiSIh1p94u5scwSS9ob+ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.72.225 with SMTP id g1mr68029331obv.80.1426895885407; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.142.226 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:58:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150319230427.GI4128@vapier> References: <20150311094134.GE9455@vapier> <1426310999-13103-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <20150319120631.GB4884@adacore.com> <20150319230427.GI4128@vapier> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] update automake version to 1.11.6 From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker , Binutils , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00680.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 19 Mar 2015 15:59, Doug Evans wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> >> Debian stable (wheezy) and newer only have 1.11.6. >> >> Ubuntu Trusty and newer only have 1.11.6. >> >> Gentoo dropped <=1.11.5 2 years ago. >> >> Fedora R17 was the last one to offer 1.11.x (it was 1.11.6). >> >> Centos 7 doesn't offer any 1.11.x version. >> >> OpenSUSE 12.2 was the last one to offer 1.11.x. >> >> Arch Linux dropped 1.11.x 3 years ago. >> >> Mageia 2 was the last one to offer 1.11.x. >> >> >> >> So anyone who readily has access to automake 1.11.[0-5] is using a two >> >> year old distro that is no longer supported. Lets use 1.11.6 as it's >> >> the only 1.11.x version that is easily available. >> >> >> >> 2015-03-14 Mike Frysinger >> >> >> >> * README-maintainer-mode: Update automake to 1.11.6. >> > >> > FWIW, I tend to avoid using the auto-tools already installed, because >> > I don't know what patches they might contain. Those patches can result >> > in small differences which inexplicably show up when you regenerate >> > some files after making some modifications. That's why I rebuilt >> > them all from source, and use them when regenerating files. >> > >> > All in all, I'm not against switching to 1.11.6 but we should then >> > regenerate all affected files now, and I would prefer it if that was >> > done using an unmodified release rather than one that might have been >> > modified by the distro. >> >> +1 on avoiding distro releases. > > if we follow this logic, why aren't autotools part of the repo, either directly > (like readline) or indirectly (git submodules) ? requiring every developer to > independently correctly download&build&install a custom version of autotools in > their system is, frankly, unreasonable. > > in Gentoo i've made it dirt simple for people -- older versions of autoconf are > available to emerge in parallel and you can select via `autoconf-2.64` or by > exporting WANT_AUTOCONF=2.64. but i don't think making Gentoo a requirement > would be approved :D. > -mike IIRC, There used to be copies of at least one of autoconf/automake on sourceware because there were local patches we needed. They were eventually deleted because there was no longer a need for them, and when we upgrade to a new version it's easier to just get the release from ftp.gnu.org (or wherever). It's happened before that distro releases of autoconf/automake contained local mods that generated noisy diffs. A distro autoconf-2.64 is not necessarily a real autoconf-2.64 (no local mods). Requiring everyone to use the same version in order to avoid noisy changes is desirable, and requiring people to download/install pure FSF copies doesn't really seem that onerous.