Re: new snapshot available: autoconf-2.72c
Carlos O'Donell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | Red Hat |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3/27/23 13:45, Sam James wrote: > > "Zack Weinberg" <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> We're overdue for a new release, so here's a snapshot in >>> preparation for that, which I want to call 2.73 (skipping 2.72). >>> There has never been an autoconf-2.72 release, yet `git describe` >>> now prints 2.72c and has been printing strings like >>> v2.72a-92-g8db00aa8 for years. >> >> Just as a note, I thought this version numbering scheme was weird >> too the first time I encountered it, but the historical practice >> has been that 2.72a, 2.72b, 2.72c, etc. are beta releases of 2.72. > > FWIW, the historical practice doesn't work very well for at least > Gentoo's package manager, and I believe this is true for other > distributions too. Agreed. You are correct. It doesn't work for Fedora either, where we often want to use git describe. For glibc I'm using `glibc-2.38.9000` tagging for pre-glibc-2.39 releases, and this sorts correctly after glibc-2.38 but before glibc-2.39. For detailed notes for glibc see: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/#Second_Tag_.5BREQUIRED.5D_.28At_release.29 > That is, 2.72a > 2.72, although 2.72_alpha < 2.72. So Jim's decision > in this case has worked well here at least. >> >>> https://meyering.net/ac/autoconf-ss.tar.xz 1.4 MB >>> https://meyering.net/ac/autoconf-ss.tar.xz.sig >>> https://meyering.net/ac/autoconf-2.72c.tar.xz >> >> Are you able to upload this to ftp.gnu.org as an official beta? >> > > or alpha.gnu.org, I suppose. Agreed. Guidance is to use alpha.gnu.org for non-final releases to avoid any confusion. >>> NEWS ===================================== >> ... >>> Port to compilers that moan about K&R func decls More fixes for >>> compilers that reject K&R function definitions. >> >> Compatibility with compilers that reject unprototyped function >> declarations should maybe get a more prominent NEWS entry. >> > > Yeah, given it's the impetus. > >> zw > -- Cheers, Carlos.