[Python-Dev] Bumping autoconf from 2.68 to 2.69
Trent Nelson
trent at snakebite.org
Tue Oct 16 17:55:01 CEST 2012
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:23:00AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com>
> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
> >> we shouldn't bump to 2.69? A Any known incompatibilities?
> >
> > There will be problems building with 2.69 on Ubuntus older than
> > 12.10, and Debians older than wheezy.
> >
> > % rmadison autoconf autoconf | A A 2.61-4 | A A A A hardy |
> source,
> > all autoconf | 2.65-3ubuntu1 | A A A A lucid | source, all
> autoconf |
> > 2.67-2ubuntu1 | A A A A natty | source, all autoconf |
> 2.68-1ubuntu1 |
> > oneiric | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu2 | A A A precise |
> > source, all autoconf | 2.69-1ubuntu1 | A A A quantal | source, all
> %
> > rmadison -u debian autoconf autoconf | 2.67-2 | squeeze | source, all
> > autoconf | 2.69-1 | wheezy A | source, all autoconf | 2.69-1 | sid
> > | source, all
> >
> > FWIW, precise is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, so it carries Python 2.7 and 3.2.
> > I think it would be fine to update the default branch (i.e. 3.4), but
> > I'm not sure what benefit you gain from making this change to stable
> > branches, and you could potentially cause build problems, which you
> > may not find out about for a while, e.g. when 2.7.4 is released and
> > all the distros go to update.
>
> Agreed: A this is really the same issue as bumping the VisualStudio
> version (or any other build tooling) inside a release line: A too much
> potential for breakage for little gain.
>
> I think Barry's suggestion of updating default and leaving stable versions
> alone is a good one.A
Bumped 3.4 to 2.69 in 79763:74b95194ba86!
Trent.
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list