Hi Zack, Am Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:23:29 -0500 schrieb Zack Weinberg <zackw@xxxxxxxxx>: > It’s been five weeks since the release of autoconf 2.69c. Many bugs > have been fixed, and I had hoped to be able to put out the final > release of 2.70 this week, but there are still some important bugs > that need to be fixed before we can do that. > > (Testing is still very welcome, but I recommend you work from autoconf > git trunk - https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/autoconf.git - rather > than continuing to use 2.69c. I can make another beta release if > that would be helpful.) If it's not too much trouble, please roll another beta release as we (Gentoo) do tinderbox runs with autoconf-2.69c and already found a couple of possible issues[1]. > Here is my current list of issues that ideally would be addressed > before the release; for each, see > `https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?BUGNUMBER` for details. > > * Regressions > * `AC_LANG_PUSH/AC_LANG_POP` malfunction inside AC_DEFUN (#110294) > * `AX_PROG_CC_FOR_BUILD` broken with 2.69c (#110350) > * `AC_INIT` quoting headaches (#110349) > * Broken `AC_PROG_LEX` macro (#110312) (unreproducible) > > * Bugs also present in 2.69 > * Replace autom4te output file atomically (#110305) > (Debian carries a patch for this, but their implementation is not > ideal.) > * Parallel autotest produces mangled output on Solaris 10 (#110354) > (cosmetic; might not be fixable) > > * Highly desirable enhancements > * Revise documentation of when configure enters cross-compilation > mode (#110347) > * Make it possible to request a specific (non-latest) version of a > language standard from `AC_PROG_CC` etc (#110286) > > At this stage I will only be accepting additions to this list if they > are regressions from 2.69. If you discover, or already know of, > regressions from 2.69 that aren’t on this list, please **file issues > in Savannah** for them. It makes quite a bit of extra work for me if > I have to copy bug reports from email into Savannah. > > (Please do also file issues in Savannah for any other bugs you find, > but make clear that it is not a regression and I’ll mark it as not > blocking 2.70.) > > Unfortunately, as of this week, the funding I had to work on the 2.70 > release has been completely used up. I’m happy to continue as > volunteer release manager for 2.70, but I cannot promise to fix all of > these bugs myself using only unpaid hacking time. I’m asking everyone > reading this email to chip in and help with these bugs so the 2.70 > release can be as good as possible. In most cases, the problem is > clear and we just need to develop and test the fix. > > I’m going to send an email like this every week from now on until the > release happens. > > zw > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/732648 Thanks and kind regards -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93 9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39
Attachment:
pgpi5GtzEuj16.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
