Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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). > > And? This should not be a problem to you. This is not problem for me on my machine - I had 1.10a/1.10b/1.11 already on my machine for quite a long time those days - but to build them in koji it required hacky solution (e.g. temporarily reverting/disabling things which do need automake 1.10a+ or some even more ugly things). I was talking about first request - just to add 1.10b to rawhide, initiative for updating F-10/F-11 to F-11 came later from Jim Meyering side. Anyway - I like F-11 update of autotools, F-10 update is still ok for me, but imho F-9 update should not make it to stable. Greetings, Ondřej
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
