From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id MSt+Ngom2mWHPCsAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:23:22 -0500 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=gCDTKSKH; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id CBB3F1E0D2; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40D41E030 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1040E3858283 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 17:23:20 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1040E3858283 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1708795400; bh=7qxju9aWxPN+r5lW6yIn+KokUGf1SYCDldMQvnfqOmw=; h=References:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=gCDTKSKH07og6Gsd0pxuso12wFZhT1Cvwz1sSSeCkq/FIj4yQPw70dUlP+lOcc4a1 5dASGGJ9rgcFu6h/uIG2KU/ZSdow50Pf2aEDTrhrIwwOBGrpbBGWGYQ9FBZOjUvu38 DTCLs5dCGbTvUAkbYgyZYllz6P/REiGMat5A5HEM= Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD14385841A for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 17:22:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7DD14385841A ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 7DD14385841A ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708795362; cv=none; b=NshKoCKRxiSjwbT+9viCxRLa6yNSkJxMxgXXEH2e0y2Otl7Co4zHMCltTSGQShrzKoAFQtw2MtOgAr8N6DLwXX/sUbYxXpMA38lGUJnvR+zqSGrxiM6t2fAss04nab0IDgAjCU/wLJ3semMEjXiWNy6EKqbkMY4NqlC7aIr2Rg4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708795362; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gf41h8O/o3vtYxHybT9eC2/bCaYw2seb9A4I6ZLPGvo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=uxTIJPqGvG8tdhdYjQwqcKin9AoIEFBHeXcqH6ThSBNvgMCjRTLksNoumqP/vBAR6FWfKcbagADpw0v0W4nCBBxBckLVC/wLJvidqfBaSF/oKUXzEpedj3X+xM0a+4RMaqQwJokeyjURc0YXTxx8tfkk70D3EoeNMKb1I72Xobg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org References: <87v86d6byg.fsf@gentoo.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 30.0.50 To: Tomasz =?utf-8?Q?K=C5=82oczko?= Cc: Sam James , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb and ancient GNU autotools Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 17:21:09 +0000 Organization: Gentoo In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87o7c56ale.fsf@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Sam James via Gdb Reply-To: Sam James Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Tomasz K=C5=82oczko writes: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 at 16:53, Sam James wrote: > [..] > > > Literally NONE Linux distribution currently provides that version so in > > case of any necessity to fix something in autoconf it is NOT POSSIBLE = to > > regenerate GNU autotools files. > > > > This is wrong, per above. > > Did you try to make a simple experiment to clone for example gdb repo and= execute "autoreconf -fiv"? You misread what I said. I was saying that it does not need autoconf-2.64. > > I've done that with autoconf 2.72, automake 1.16 and libtool 2.4.7 and he= re is the result: > [...]> > And autoconf 2.69 has been released (sic!) ONLY TWELVE years ago .. > Again, I actually agree with needing to move to 2.72. But you've misread my previous message. Also note that while autoconf-2.69 is old, it took a long time for autoconf-2.7{0,1} to be released, so it's not quite a fair comparison.