an update to automake-1.11?
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Tue Jun 30 21:34:57 UTC 2009
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 :|
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list