From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14428 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2007 17:53:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 14392 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2007 17:53:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl (HELO pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl) (153.19.208.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:53:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6A9E1C7A; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:52:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESuu5A6oqbtw; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:52:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from piorun.ds.pg.gda.pl (piorun.ds.pg.gda.pl [153.19.208.8]) by pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A11E1C73; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:52:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl (macro@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl [153.19.208.6]) by piorun.ds.pg.gda.pl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l19Hr8Dw028286; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:53:08 +0100 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:53:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, newlib@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Updating top-level autoconf to 2.59 In-Reply-To: <20070209174229.GA18533@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: References: <20070207193352.GA13757@nevyn.them.org> <20070208222020.GA2267@nevyn.them.org> <200702082254.l18MsOuR028641@greed.delorie.com> <20070209151558.GA7193@nevyn.them.org> <20070209153841.GA12038@nevyn.them.org> <20070209161658.GA13966@nevyn.them.org> <20070209174229.GA18533@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Status: Clean Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > That's not what I meant. There's just too many cases that need to be > tested. Anyway, you're welcome to do it now that the top level has > moved up :-) I'm out of time for the moment. I'll have a look. > I believe the plan was to upgrade top level configure first, then > libtool and automake (I don't remember if they were supposed to be done > together or in a particular order). Definitely I want to remove the > libtool fork. But talk about a change needing a lot of testing... Of course testing is needed. But my feeling is keeping jumps between versions of auxiliary tools as small as possible should give us less breakage at a time. I think it may be quite a reasonable idea to check whether the tools might be updated every time we are in stage 1. > Your patches would definitely be welcome. OK, I'll raise the priority for this task. At least problems that I have already discovered will be known if not fixed this way. Maciej