Re: any objections to Autoconf 2.61?

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Ralf Wildenhues on 8/7/2006 5:11 AM:
> Hello Paul,
> 
> * Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 07:43:05AM CEST:
>> Given the problems we're having with Autoconf 2.60 and M4 1.4.5,
>> perhaps it's time to issue Autoconf 2.61, with the NEWS item
>> prominently mentioning that 1.4.5 or later is now recommended.
> 
> Is "the problems" the handful of bug reports stemming from changed M4
> warning output that causes a spurious test suite failure?  If so, I
> think the test suite should pass with both 1.4.5 and previous M4
> versions, even if they aren't recommended.  And I don't think it's
> such a big issue, if you ask me (but maybe I have missed something
> here).

Additionally, M4 1.4.5 had some testsuite failures reported, so I am
trying to output M4 1.4.6 in the near future.  And in this release, m4
will use GNU Coding Standard error messages ("m4:file:line: message"
rather than "file:line: m4: message"), so it may be better to recommend
1.4.6, and make the testsuite robust to all three formats of error
messages.  I'm still running the potential 1.4.6 through prerelease tests,
one of which is seeing how the autoconf testsuite behaves with it.

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE1zn+84KuGfSFAYARAtt+AKCyHduQPKbsa+O01JzHptvBEuatQACg2VD2
VqVhSRzgz2YeyKVlmCOUQdQ=
=fuRv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----