[patch 1/28] top-level: Use automake-1.11.6
Michael Haubenwallner
michael.haubenwallner@ssi-schaefer.com
Tue May 12 08:49:00 GMT 2015
On 05/11/2015 07:55 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2015, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> But maybe you would like it better if we update, for instance, to:
>> automake-1.14 _and_ autoconf-2.69 ?
>
> Updating to current automake and autoconf release versions (but still
> using git versions of the toplevel scripts, not those from particular
> releases) is a good thing
Agreed - but that seems to require additional source changes, which is
beyond my knowledge (and need). Besides that: wouldn't such commits be
of better quality when starting from identical old (1.11.6) versions?
> - remembering that toplevel is shared with the
> binutils-gdb and newlib-cygwin repositories
Just curious: I do remember this from the old CVS days, but given that
gcc has its own Subversion repository, how is that organized now?
> (unfortunately some files
> sometimes get out of sync, especially in newlib-cygwin which people
> commonly don't update when changing the other repositories), so if
> subdirectories in those repositories aren't updated at least ensure that a
> mixture of versions (toplevel using a newer version than some
> subdirectories) works.
I'm all fine to omit this top-level downgrades and regenerate without the
"--add-missing --copy --force-missing" automake flags. Feels more obvious
anyway, otherways "--enable-maintainer-mode" should use them already.
> (If libtool gets involved in the update, remember about reverting libtool
> commit 3334f7ed5851ef1e96b052f2984c4acdbf39e20c from the version of
> libtool code used.)
Indeed a libtool patch (for aix) is the driving one behind this automake sync.
But as far as I understand, libtool-originating files are slightly modified
in gcc anyway, so I plan to pick this aix patch only, not a general update.
Thanks!
/haubi/
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list