Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

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


> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:33, Zack Weinberg <zack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me
>>> personally if autoconf just made a release with the latest bugfixes.
>> Before I dive into the rest of this thread: yes, this is one of
>> my main thoughts on the matter. Autoconf has a huge network
>> effect problem and letting the existing fixes start to propagate
>> would be most helpful.
> It would be relatively easy for me to take a couple hours this weekend and put out a 2.72 release with everything that's already in trunk and nothing else.  Anyone have reasons I _shouldn't_ do that?
>> Note that in autoconf git, we've also got
>> which is going to affect time_t efforts too
> I have not been following the y2038 work closely.  Is it going to affect things in a good way or a bad way??

Back to the original thread: I suspect it might be a better idea to (temporarily) revert the two changes
and omit it from 2.72 to allow the other changes to get out.

That's not a judgement on whether the changes will ultimately remain in autoconf, I'm just
hesitant to allow a discussion I've kicked off to derail something that we were planning
on doing anyway.

What do you think?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux