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. Upgrade on F-11 (and F-10) was requested because there are some projects (like gnulib/coreutils) which really need automake 1.11 for build in latest stable versions. Anyway I'm a bit surprised by F-9 update - as we argumented by more possible projects with need for automake-1.11 during F-10/F-11 lifecycle. Packages automake/autoconf are special - as you need them not only for packaging, but for building not packaged projects from git/whatever upstream repos. Yes, you could always compile latest autotools as well and use them, but automake 1.10 is ~2 years old software. AFAIK there were no incompatibility changes in automake, so the only problem could be if the program relies on exact automake version - which is imho wrong. > 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. Previous automake 1.10 is more than 2 years old, automake 1.10b and beta release were used at least for building testing gnulib and coreutils project and there were no troubles. Ralf Wildenhues is very conservative with changes - which is good for projects like automake/autoconf. Therefore I don't expect incompatibility issues. Anyone experienced troubles with latest automake in rawhide (other than exact automake version check)? If so - it's still in testing, so it still could (and for F-9 imho anyway should) be unpushed... Greetings, Ondřej Vašík
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
