On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:50 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:02 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Is there a bug report with details of this gnulib/coreutils request? > > Not really, it was just direct irl/irc/mail communication with > automake/autoconf fedora maintainers&comaintainers. First request was > only about 1.10b in rawhide (after f-12 split) - as I needed at least > 1.10b to build coreutils-7.4 there (otherwise only with an ugly hack). Okay, but what exactly are we talking about here? What does gnulib or coreutils need that 1.10 doesn't have? A rebase of an important package in three stable releases, which is expected to break rebuilds of some packages, should surely have more justification than an empty update description, no associated bugzilla and claims that Jim Meyering needs some unspecified new features. Cheers, Mark. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
