On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > I was rather surprised to see: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-6661 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-6076 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-6370 > > Where the automake was upgraded to 1.11 for F9, F10, and F11. > > In general automake hasn't had a very good track record of compatibility > between 1.x and 1.y, though this has been getting better recently. > I don't see any specific mentions of incompatible changes in a quick > scan of: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2009-05/msg00093.html > > But it is also a pretty long release announcement so it wouldn't > surprise me if there were some subtle incompatibilities. > > The only breakage I'm actually aware of in the gnome-common package; > gnome-common-2.26 and earlier doesn't know that automake-1.11 is > a valid replacement when automake-1.10 is asked for. > > So, we definitely need to release an update for gnome-common, or people > aren't going to be able to do GNOME development on F11. > > But is this the type of upgrade that makes sense in general? It seems to > me that we should be very conservative in upgrading build tools, > especially in "maintenance mode" distributions like F9 and F10. This is seriously dubious for F9, since if it causes a problem there is next to no time in which to fix it before F9 updates are turned off. In general I struggle to believe that there is a compelling need to rebase automake versions in our stable releases. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
